(Prayer: IA NO: 2 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to review the order passed in WP no. 29393 of 2023 dated 17-11-2023.

IA NO: 3 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to file review against the order passed in WP no. 29393 of 2023 dated 17-11-2023 and pass

IA NO: 4 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the order passed in WP No. 29393/ 2023 dated 17-11-2023 and pass

IA NO: 5 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the order passed in WP no. 29393 of 2023 dated 17-11-2023 pending disposal of the review petition and pass

Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to punish the respondent/contemnor herein under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for wilfully and disobediently not implementing the Orders of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.No.1487 of 2019, dated 12.02.2019 by His Lordship's U.DURGA PRASAD and pass)

Common Order

1. The Review Petition is filed to review the orders dated 17.11.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition vide W.P.No.29393 of 2023.

2. The Contempt Case vide C.C.No.1034 of 2019 is filed alleging disobedience of the orders dated 12.02.2019 passed in Writ Petition vide W.P.No.1487 of 2019.

3. The grounds of review petition, in brief, are that, in the writ petition filed vide W.P.No.29393 of 2023, the factum of filing the contempt case for violation of the orders passed in W.P.No.1487 of 2019 and the endorsement given by the Tahsildar stating that the request of the petitioners for survey of the lands could not be considered in view of several litigations pending and further the petitioners failed to disclose the factum of filing of a suit by their vendor, its dismissal and pendency of second appeal vide S.A.No.1141 of 2025, and had those facts been brought to the notice of this Court while passing orders, the result of Writ Petition No.29393 of 2023 would have been otherwise. Since there is error apparent on record, the orders passed in W.P.No.29393 of 2023 are to be reviewed.

4. The petitioners in W.P.No.29393 of 2023, who are also the petitioners in W.P.No.1487 of 2019 filed Contempt Case vide C.C.No.1034 of 2019 alleging disobedience of the orders passed in W.P.No.1487 of 2019 and hence to punish the Tahsildar, who was respondent no.4 therein under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

5. Since review petition is filed on the ground that factum of filing of C.C.No.1034 of 2019 has not been brought to the notice of this Court, they both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

6. Heard Sri G.Vivekanand, learned counsel for review petitioners and Sri G.K.Rakesh Goud, learned counsel for petitioners in Contempt Case and learned counsel for respondents in review petition.

7. Sri G.Vivekanad, learned counsel, while reiterating the grounds of review petition would contend that, earlier the writ petitioners filed writ petition vide W.P.No.1487 of 2019 for conducting survey and demarcation of their land and the said writ petition was disposed of directing respondent no.4-Tahsildar to consider the F-line application of the petitioners and conduct survey and thereafter the writ petitioners filed Contempt Case vide C.C.No.1034 of 2019 alleging disobedience of the orders passed in W.P.No.1487 of 2019. He would further contend that thereafter without disclosing the result of the earlier in W.P.No.1487 of 2019 and filing of the Contempt Case and the endorsement given by the Tahsildar that survey could not be conducted in view of several disputes pending over the subject land; the very same petitioners filed the writ petition vide W.P.No.29393 of 2023 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition directing respondent no.3 therein-Tahsildar to dispose of the petitioner’s application. He would further contend that the subsequent writ petition vide W.P.No.29393 of 2023 is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed in view of filing of earlier writ petition and contempt case and if the said facts were either mentioned or brought to the notice of this Court, the said writ petition would have been dismissed. He would further contend that as there was suppression of the material facts from being disclosed, the orders passed in W.P.No.29393 of 2023 are to be reviewed and accordingly prayed to allow the review petition and dismiss the Writ Petition vide W.P.No.29393 of 2023.

                  In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decisions in K.Jayaram & others vs. Bangalore Development Authority & others(2021 INSC 842) and Zeba Khan vs. State of U.P. & others(2026 SCC OnLine SC 188)

8. On the other hand, Sri G.K.Rakesh Goud, learned counsel for petitioners in Contempt Case and for respondent nos.1 to 3 in review petition would contend that there is no suppression of any material facts in the writ petition vide W.P.No.29393 of 2023 and the factum of filing of earlier writ petition and its disposal directing the Tahsildar to consider F Line application and conduct survey has clearly been mentioned in paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the writ affidavit and as the Tahsildar postponed the issue despite making several requests, the petitioners again made another F line application on 25.04.2022 and as the same too was not considered the writ petition vide W.P.No.29393 of 2023 was filed and as there was no suppression of any material facts, there are no grounds to review the orders passed in Writ Petition. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the review petition.

                  He would further contend that despite a specific direction given by this Court in Writ Petition vide W.P.No.1487 of 2019, the respondent-Tahsildar in utter disobedience of the orders passed therein did not conduct survey and therefore wantonly and deliberately flouted the orders passed by this Court and hence he is liable to punishment under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts and accordingly prayed to allow the contempt case.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent in Contempt Case would contend that survey could not be conducted as directed vide orders passed in W.P.No.1487 of 2019 since several litigations are pending in relation to the subject property including Second Appeal vide S.A.No.1141 of 2025 and an endorsement to that effect was issued by respondent in Contempt Case and therefore there is no disobedience muchless willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court and hence the Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed.

10. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

11. The petitioners earlier filed writ petition vide W.P.No.1487 of 2019 for declaring the inaction on the part of the Tahsildar in considering their F-Line Application dated 12.11.2018 for conducting survey and demarcation of their land in an extent of Ac.7-65 cents in Survey No.124/1 of Pathiputtur Village fields, Vadamulapeta Mandal, Chittoor District. The said writ petition was disposed of on 12.02.2019, directing the Tahsildar to consider the F-Line application of the petitioner and conduct survey of the subject land. Alleging disobedience of the orders passed in the writ petition, the petitioners filed contempt case vide C.C.No.1034 of 2019, contending that as there was no response pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the petitioners submitted a representation to the Tahsildar on 19.02.2019 and in response thereto the Tahsildar stated that all the officers are held up in election work and after completion of general elections they will conduct survey and fix boundaries and though elections were completed the Tahsildar did not get the land surveyed and therefore, there is deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by this Court.

12. The Petitioners filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.29393 of 2023 contending that subsequent to the orders passed in W.P.No.1487 of 2019, the Tahsildar initially proposed to conduct survey on 17.11.2020 and vide proceedings in Roc.A/465/2020, dated 07.11.2020 requested The Station House Officer, Vadamalapeta Police Station, Chittoor District, to provide police protection for conducting survey, however he did not move further and later the petitioners approached the Tahsildar many a time and for no positive move, they again made another F-Line Application dated 25.04.2022 but as the same was not considered the writ petition was filed.

13. This Court by considering the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, that, earlier though Tahsildar sought police protection, the police did not provide protection and hence another written request was made and the Station House Officer, Vadamalapeta Police Station is ready to provide police protection for conducting survey and schedule was fixed for conducting survey on 22.11.2023 and the Tahsildar would act upon the application. Basing on the representation made by the learned Government Pleader, this Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the Tahsildar to dispose of the petitioner’s F-Line Application dated 14.10.2023 by taking into consideration the Circular of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Andhra Pradesh, Gollapudi, dated 21.04.2022.

14. The material on record would further disclose that Second Appeal vide S.A.No.1141 of 2025 is pending and the letter addressed by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vadamalapet to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor would disclose that a settlement case under Section 54(1) of Estate Abolishment Act on the file of the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer, Chittoor, is pending against the subject property. The letter further stated that further action will be taken in the matter after the disposal of the above cases.

15. No doubt, the petitioners did not make any mention about filing and pendency of the Contempt Case alleging disobedience of the orders passed in W.P.No.1487 of 2019. The Writ petition is of the year 2023, whereas the Contempt Case was filed in the year 2019.

16. In K.Jayaram and others (supra 1) the Hon’ble Supreme Court reinforces the Doctrine of Clean Hands, holding that suppressing material facts in writ proceedings is equivalent to fraud and warrants dismissal without examining the merits. The Supreme Court ruled that failing to disclose previous litigation regarding the same land acquisition, as in this case, disqualifies a party from equitable relief under Article 226.

17. In Zeba Khan (supra 2) the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that applicants must make full disclosure of their criminal antecedents in bail applications and set aside the bail granted since the High Court failed to apply its mind to the suppression of material facts.

18. However, it is relevant here to note that Writ petition No.29393 of 2023 though filed for the self same relief of conducting survey of the subject land, however it is founded on a separate cause of action of considering the F-Line application dated 25.04.2022 submitted much after disposal of the earlier writ petition vide W.P.No.1487 of 2019. As stated supra the said writ petition was disposed of, considering the submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that survey would be conducted with police aid. Therefore, the orders passed in W.P.No.1487 of 2019 are superseded by the orders passed in Writ Petition No.29393 of 2023, whereby a direction was given to the Tahsildar to consider the F-Line application dated 25.04.2022 taking into consideration the circular of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. Therefore, though there is suppression of the factum of filing of the Contempt Case, that alone would not be a circumstance to review the orders passed in W.P.No.29393 of 2023 and thereby to dismiss the writ petition, since founded on a separate cause of action.

19. In view of the above, the review petition vide I.A.No.2 of 2023 in W.P.No.29393 of 2023 shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

20. Moreover, since the orders passed in W.P.No.29393 of 2023 supersedes the orders passed in W.P.No.1487 of 2019, the contempt case filed alleging disobedience of the orders passed therein would not survive and if at all the petitioners so chose can question the disobedience of the orders passed in W.P.No.29393 of 2023.

21. It is apt to refer that for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, the disobedience must be willful, deliberate, and intentional. Mere non-compliance or unintentional disobedience, such as when a party is unable to perform for reasons beyond their control, is insufficient to constitute civil contempt. It is clarified that a property can be surveyed during pending civil litigation, but with significant restrictions. While authorities can conduct surveys, they cannot alter the status quo, prejudge ownership, or proceed if a court has issued a stay order. A survey must not violate the lis pendens principle, meaning it shouldn't be used to change possession.

22. In view of the above, the Contempt Case No.1034 of 2019 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.