HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.638 of 2011 Date:02.09.2011 Between: Moudu Navaneethamma and three others. ..... Petitioners AND M.Venkateswarlu, Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali, Nellore District And another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri K.R.Sashidharan Nair For Sri Palle Nageswara Rao Counsel for the Respondents : AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order, dated 20.10.2010, in Writ Petition No.13805 of 2010. The petitioners filed the above-mentioned Writ Petition with the grievance that respondent No.2 has not been passing appropriate orders under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. This Court by order, dated 20.10.2010, disposed of the said Writ Petition with the direction to respondent No.2 herein to complete the enquiry and pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after hearing all the parties concerned. Alleging that respondent No.2 has failed to comply with the said order of this Court by not passing the order, the petitioners filed the present Contempt Case. In obedience to the notices of this Court, the respondents have appeared in person. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia stated that the order of this Court in the said Writ Petition was received on 20.11.2010 and immediately thereafter, notices were issued to all the persons concerned on 24.11.2010 directing their appearance on 07.12.2010 for enquiry and that, on 15.02.2011, one of the petitioners requested for grant of a month’s time for filing the written statement along with documentary evidence and that accepting the said request, time was granted. It is further stated that after giving sufficient opportunity to the parties, the case was finally disposed of on 04.06.2011 and the order passed therein was served on the petitioners and other parties concerned on 15.06.2011. Even though it would have been proper and appropriate for respondent No.2 to have sought for extension of time stipulated by this Court by making an appropriate application, having regard to the explanation offered by respondent No.2 for the delayed disposal of the enquiry, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for proceeding against the respondents for contempt. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed with liberty to the petitioners to question the order passed by respondent No.2 by availing appropriate remedy if they feel aggrieved by the said order. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 02nd September2011 DR