ORDER
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. Petitioners along with 38 others filed W.P. No. 33276 of 1998 inter alia seeking a direction to the Collector, Visakhapatnam District and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Visakhapatnam Mandal, not to dispossess them from their respective house, plots in S. No. 1/2 in the lay out plan approved under resolution No. 3-A dated 01-07-1970 of Yendada Gram Panchayat purchased by them under registered sale deeds from their vendor A. Radhakrishnamurthy and filed W.P.MP. No. 40900 of 1998 therein seeking a direction to the respondents in the writ petition not to dispossess them from their respective house plots pending disposal of the Writ Petition wherein a learned single Judge by his order dated 13-11 -1998, passed the following order:
The learned Government Pleader for Assignments takes notice and requests two weeks time for filing counter.
In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo existing as on today in all respects, until further orders.
which order is still in force. Alleging that the respondents violated the above interim order by issuing a notice in Form No. 1 as per Rule 3 of the Rules framed under the A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short ‘the Act’) petitioners filed this petition to punish the respondents for the contempt committed by them.
2. The case, in brief, of the petitioners is that about two or three days prior to their filing this petition, some persons, at the instance of the revenue authorities, high-handedly started digging pits in their sites, in spite of their objection and their being informed of the above interim orders of the Court, and so they got issued a lawyer notice dated 09-04-2005, to the respondents, which was received by them on 12-04-2005, and in spite thereof they were served notices in Form No. 1 to show cause why they should not be evicted from the plots purchased by them.
3. Prima facie, since there is nothing to show that 1st respondent violated the order dated 13-11-1998 in W.P.MP. No. 40900 of 1998 and since it is the 2nd respondent that issued notice in Form No. 1, he only was directed to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, whereupon he filed his counter affidavit alleging that after the predecessor in his office, vide the resumption order dated 16-11-1987 in Rc. No. 2196/87/HA, resumed the land, petitioners and others made a representation to the District Collector alleging that they purchased house plots from A. Radhakrishnamurthy under registered sale deeds and filed W.P. No. 33276 of 1998 and obtained an interim direction of stay from dispossession, but since that land was already resumed and since their purchase was subsequent to the resumption from the original assignee, they cannot claim any right in the land which is under the custody of the Government for construction of houses ‘Rajiv Gruha Kalpa Scheme’ and petitioners, if they feel that they are eligible for assignment of land, can apply under the ‘Rajiv Gruha Kalpa Scheme’.
4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since the direction of this Court is to “maintain status quo in all respects”, 2nd respondent issuing notices in Form No. 1 to the petitioners during the pendency of the interim order is but a violation of the interim order of this Court.
5. The contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that since the land was resumed way back in the year 1987 and is in possession of the revenue department from that time onwards, and since petitioners claim to have purchased the land from the original assignee after he was evicted from the land, 2nd respondent by merely issuing notices in Form No. 1 of the Rules framed under the Act cannot be said to have violated the order of this Court and contends that if the Court were to feel that there is a contempt by the 2nd respondent, he tenders apology. She faintly contended that 1st (sic. 2nd) respondent became aware of the interim orders only after he received notice in this petition.
6. In reply, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the fact that petitioners were issued notices in Form No. 1 of the Rules framed under the Act shows that it is the petitioners, but not the revenue department, that is in possession of the land and so the alleged resumption of the land in 1987 cannot be believed or accepted,
7. I feel it relevant to extract paras 2 and 6 of the counter affidavit of the first (sic. second) respondent before going into the merits of the contentions raised.
2. …This Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant status quo order dated 30-11-1998 in WPMP. No. 40900 of 1998 in W.P. No. 33276/1998 as follows:
In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo existing as on to-day in all respects, until further orders.
6. It is respectfully submitted that it is correct to say that there is stay in the above writ petition with regard to the issue of show cause notice and the status quo order existing in all respects is only relating to the possession of the land. Hence, there is no stay for initiating action under Prohibition of Transfer Act for conducting enquiry against the petitioners who have purchased the assigned lands, which are already resumed in the year 1987. Even as per interim order of status quo, the land was under the custody of the Government as on the date of the order. Hence the interim order in fact is in favour of the Government and not the petitioners.
In view of the above averments in the counter-affidavit of the 2nd respondent, it is clear that he issued the notice in Form No. 1 of the Rules framed under the Act, in spite of his knowledge of the interim orders of this Court. Therefore, I find no force in the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that 2nd respondent became aware of the interim orders only after he received notice in this petition, but not earlier, more so because Form No. 1 notices were served on the petitioners, after they and the other writ petitioners got issued a notice dated 09-04-2005 to the respondents through their advocate at Visakhapatnam informing them about the pendency of the writ petition and the interim order and about the writ petitioners’ intention to move this Court for contempt, if any violation is made by them.
8. Question whether the land was resumed in 1987 or not, is not very much relevant for disposal of this petition filed for punishing the respondent for violation of the interim order dated 13-11-1998, where by they are directed to maintain status quo existing as on that date ‘in all respects’ until further orders.
9. In spite of the fact that petitioners filed a copy of the notice sent by them along with the other writ petitioners to the respondents through their advocate at Visakhapatnam on 09-04-2005, since respondents took a specific plea that they are not aware of the pendency of the writ petition or the interim order passed therein, I sent for the writ petition and have gone through the same. It shows that notices in the writ petition through registered post were served in the offices of the respondents way back on 16-12-1998. In fact, the order dated 13-11-1998, violation of which resulted in this petition, shows that the learned Government Pleader for Assignments took notice on behalf of the respondents in that WPMP and requested time for two weeks for filing counter on their behalf. All these apart, as stated in para-7 supra, the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent itself shows that he is very much aware of the interim order of this Court.
10. From the averments in para-6 of his counter affidavit, extracted above, the contention of 2nd respondent is that issuance of notice in Form No. 1 cannot be construed as a violation of the interim order of this Court. Since the direction given to the respondents by the interim order dated 13-11-1998 is ‘to maintain status quo existing as on that date in all respects’ and since by Form No. 1 notices served on petitioners, by 2nd respondent directed them to show cause why they should not summarily be evicted from the land, it cannot be said that 2nd respondent is maintaining the status quo obtaining ‘in all respects’ as directed by this Court by issuing the notice in Form No. 1. If respondents already took possession of the land from A. Radhakrishnamurthy, the assignee, and are in possession thereof, question of the 2nd respondent directing the petitioners to show cause against their summary eviction from that land would not arise.
11. Since 2nd respondent though is aware of the pendency of the writ petition and the interim order therein, had with full knowledge of the interim order, issued the notices in Form No. 1 calling for explanation from the petitioners as to why they should not summarily be evicted from the land in their possession, it cannot but be said that 2nd respondent deliberately violated the interim order of this Court dated 13-11 -1998.
12. Since the 2nd respondent instead of showing repentance tried to justify his action through his counter affidavit, and did not show any signs of penitence, his apology tendered through the Assistant Government Pleader is not acceptable, more so because apology is not a panacea in every case of contempt and so 2nd respondent is liable to be punished for his violation of the interim order dated 13-11-1998 of this Court.
13. Since 1st respondent did not violate the interim order of this Court, petition against him is liable to be and hence is dismissed.
14. For the contempt committed by him, 2nd respondent is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to be paid by him personally. Petition is ordered accordingly.