1. This special leave petition seeks to impugn an order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 10.03.2025 whereby the revision petition of the first respondent impugning the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in E.P. No.19/2004, arising from A.T.C. No.2 of 2003, was allowed and a direction was issued to the Special Officer under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act') to ensure that possession of the scheduled property is delivered to the respondent.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this petition are that the first respondent was an agricultural tenant of the land in dispute. As, under Section 15 of the Act, an agricultural tenant has a right of first purchase of the land under his tenancy, a proceeding (i.e., ATC No.2 of 2003) under Section 16 of the Act was instituted by him before the Tribunal constituted under the Act for determination of its sale price. In those proceedings the Tribunal passed an interim injunction directing maintenance of status quo to ensure that no third-party transfers / rights be created. However, in violation of injunction, sale deeds were executed in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, relief to declare those sale-deeds as void was incorporated in the petition filed under Section 16 of the Act. The Tribunal, vide order dated 30.11.2009, declared the price at Rs.1,25,000/- per acre reasonable and further declared that the same was accepted by the landlord and therefore, the sale of scheduled land became effective on payment of 1st installment of Rs.49,125/- to the landlord vide demand draft dated 26.09.2003 whereas the balance of Rs.4,42,125/- had to be paid in 9 installments. In addition to above, the Tribunal declared sale deed(s) dated 3.2.2006 void. Further, the Tribunal granted injunction protecting possession of the first respondent. This order of the Tribunal was set aside in appeal / revision but ultimately was restored by this Court vide order dated 27.10.2021 passed in C. A. No. of 2021 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.28696-28697 of 2015. However, in the interregnum, during pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal, in violation of status quo order, the first respondent was dispossessed by the petitioner.

3. Consequently, after this Court settled the matter in favour of the first respondent, an Execution Petition (i.e., E.P. No. 19 of 2021) was filed by the first respondent for restoration of possession which came to be dismissed by the Execution Court on the ground that there was no decree for possession therefore execution court cannot go beyond the decree. Against the said order, revision was filed before the High Court which came to be allowed by the impugned order, inter alia, reasoning that the first respondent was in possession on the date of filing ATC No.2 of 2003; his possession was disturbed during currency of status quo order; the sale deeds in favour of the other side was declared void; and the power of restitution inheres in a Court. Consequently, the High Court directed the Special Officer under the Act to ensure restoration of possession.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that since decree did not specifically direct for restoration of possession, the execution court could not direct restoration of possession.

5. In our view such an argument does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner who gained possession under sale deeds which have been declared void and were executed in violation of status quo order. Moreover, it is found that possession was illegally taken in violation of status quo order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, when the order of the Tribunal has been restored by this Court, the petitioner cannot resist the consequences, that too, by raising technical objections.

6. Consequently, we do not find it to be a fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction under Section 136 of the Constitution. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

Contempt Petition

7. Insofar as contempt petition is concerned, we do not find a good reason to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondent/alleged contemnor for violating the interim order passed by this Court dated 18.07.2025 since the interim order merely stayed the effect and operation of the order passed by the High Court during the pendency of this petition.

8. However, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this contempt petition with an observation that if, on account of interim order dated 18.07.2025, the first respondent has lost possession over the land in dispute, he will have a right to get his possession restored through the execution court.

9. All other pending applications shall stand disposed of.