Judgment :- (Contempt Case U/s. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondents herein for violating, disobeying the Order of the High Court dated 28/10/2010 in WP No.23479/2010) This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of Order, dated 28-10-2010, passed by this Court in WP.No.23479 of 2010, by the respondents. The petitioners herein filed the above-noted Writ Petition for a Mandamus to set aside Order, dated 16-09-2010, passed by respondent No.1, whereby respondent No.1 has directed annulment of various registered sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners. This Court, while allowing the said Writ Petition held that respondent No.1 is not vested with the unilateral power of annulment of the registered documents and placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in K.V.Sudha Rani and others v. The Vijayawada-Guntur-Tenali-Mangalgiri Urban Development Authority (VGTM-UDA), Vijayawada, rep. by its Vice-Chairman and others ( 2008 (3) ALT 760 ),wherein it was held that a person, who seeks cancellation of a registered document, has two remedies available under law viz., (1) to seek invalidation of the registered sale deed by approaching the competent Court under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; or (2) to seek cancellation of the registered document by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 26 (k) (i) of the Rules framed by the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Act. It was further held that except these two remedies, no person or authority has the right to unilaterally invalidate a registered sale deed on any ground. On the above premises, the Writ Petition was allowed by setting aside the Order of unilateral annulment of registered sale deeds, however, with liberty to the respondents to initiate appropriate action, in accordance with law, for annulment of the registered sale deeds. Purporting to take fresh action, Contemnor No.1-District Collector has issued proceedings, dated 15-02-2011, directing Contemnor No.2-Revenue Divisional Officer to cancel the registered sale deeds so as to enable the sub-Registrar to change the documents as A.W.D. in Revenue records. Feeling aggrieved by this Order, the petitioner filed this Contempt Case alleging that the said Order is in blatant violation of Order, dated 28-10-2010, passed by this Court in WP.No.23479 of 2010. In compliance with the direction of this Court, all the contemnors were present. Feeling aggrieved by this Order, the petitioner filed this Contempt Case alleging that the said Order is in blatant violation of Order, dated 28-10-2010, passed by this Court in WP.No.23479 of 2010. In compliance with the direction of this Court, all the contemnors were present. Smt.A.Vani Prasad- Contemnor No.1 has filed a counter-affidavit wherein she has inter alia stated that she sought for the opinion of the Standing Counsel to take further action and that before receiving the legal opinion, she has issued Order, dated 15-02-2011. She further stated that she was under the impression that she could pass orders by permitting the Revenue Divisional Officer to cancel the sale deeds. While asserting that she did not violate the Order of this Court with a willful and deliberate intention, she has stated that she was under a mistaken impression that she could pass the orders as per the observations of this Court which gave liberty to her to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law. She has tendered her unconditional apology for issuing the impugned proceedings, which are stated to have been suspended by the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Memo, dated 18-04-2011. Having considered the stand of Contemnor No.1 in her counter-affidavit referred to above, I am of the opinion that she failed to understand the true purport of the Order, dated 28-10-2010, passed by this Court in WP.No.23479 of 2010, which was based on the judgment in K.V.Sudha Rani and others (cited supra) wherein as noted above, this Court held, in unequivocal terms, that no person or authority has any right to unilaterally invalidate a registered sale deed on any ground. Had Contemnor No.1 applied her mind properly, she would not have committed the act of indulging in a fresh attempt to unilaterally cancel the sale deeds. A person holding the high position as District Collector is expected to understand the plain language of the judgments through proper application of mind. On her own showing, Contemnor No.1, having referred the issue for legal opinion, did not await the legal opinion. She had exhibited undue haste in passing the order, for the second time, directing annulment of the sale deeds even before receipt of such legal opinion. She failed to explain the reason for such haste. On her own showing, Contemnor No.1, having referred the issue for legal opinion, did not await the legal opinion. She had exhibited undue haste in passing the order, for the second time, directing annulment of the sale deeds even before receipt of such legal opinion. She failed to explain the reason for such haste. I have, therefore, no doubt in my mind that Order, dated 15-02-2011, passed by Contemnor No.1 is in total derogation of the Order, dated 28-10-2010, passed by this Court in WP.No.23479 of 2010. Ordinarily, Contemnor No.1 would have deserved appropriate punishment in this regard. However, taking a lenient view and accepting the unconditional apologies expressed by her, she is let off with a warning not to repeat such acts in future. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Contempt Case is closed.