HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1244 of 2011 Date : 23.12.2011 Between: Tamina Bivi & another. …Petitioners And Solomon Arogyaraj, District Collector, Chittoor. …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1244 of 2011 ORDER : This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging that the respondent-District Collector, Chittoor District has violated the orders of this Court, dated 28th of April 2008, passed in W.P.No.4805 of 2008. The 1st petitioner is the wife and the 2nd petitioner is the son of one Sri Pakir Saheb, who was assigned an extent of Ac.5.26 cents of land in Sy.No.378 of Mallavaripalem village in Sathyavedu Mandal of Chittoor District. It is the case of the petitioners that after the death of said Pakir Saheb, they succeeded to the aforesaid property. The writ petition in W.P.No.4805 of 2008 was filed by the petitioners herein, seeking directions to the respondents therein not to dispossess them from the land in question and also questioned the action of respondents in taking steps for payment of compensation to third parties. A learned single Judge of this Court, as the patta granted to Late Pakir Saheb was not disputed, disposed of the writ petition, directing the respondents to acquire the land in question by following due procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, if the said land is needed for public purpose and pay exgratia as provided for under G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23rd December 1993, if the said DKT patta is not cancelled. In this contempt case, it is the grievance of the petitioners that though their land is resumed for public purpose, they were not paid compensation, as directed by this Court in W.P.No.4805 of 2008. Counter affidavit and additional counter affidavits are filed by the respondent herein. In the counter, while denying the various allegations made by the petitioners, it is stated that after obtaining consent from the petitioners, the Tahsildar, Sathyavedu, vide proceedings No.B/646/2008, dated 29.04.2010, passed orders for resumption of land in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307, Revenue Department, dated 23rd December 1993, and the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Special Economic Zone, Tirupati, also recommended for payment of exgratia in favour of petitioners. It is stated that a further report is called for from the Special Deputy Collector to report as to whether the aforesaid land is really needed for APIIC. In the report submitted by the Special Deputy Collector, as it is indicated that out of the aforesaid land, only an extent of Ac.0.21 cents is required for establishment of industrial park, revised orders are issued by the Tahsildar, Sathyavedu, vide proceedings No.B/646/2008, dated 13.10.2011, cancelling the resumption orders issued on 29.04.2010 insofar as Ac.5.05 cents is concerned, by confining the resumption only to an extent of Ac.0.21 cents and the petitioners were also informed that the Government is not taking possession of the said Ac.5.05 cents of their land. In view of the same, exgratia was sanctioned for Ac.0.21 cents in Sy.No.378 of Mallavaripalem village in favour of petitioners and an amount of Rs.52,500/- was paid to them vide Demand Draft bearing No.495068, dated 07.10.2011, and the same was disbursed to the petitioners on 08.10.2011. In the additional counter affidavit, the respondent has explained the contents of the letter, dated 06.05.2010, addressed by the Tahsildar, Sathyavedu. It is stated that the possession of entire land of petitioners was not taken but the same is incorrectly recorded in the report of the Tahsildar, dated 06.05.2010, as such, disciplinary proceedings are also initiated against the Tahsildar, Sathyavedu, under the provisions of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules of 1991, in proceedings No.A1/11551/2011, dated 26.11.2011. Heard Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent. In this case, it is to be noticed that at first instance, the entire extent of Ac.5.26 cents of land belonging to the petitioners was notified by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, but thereafter, the resumption order, dated 29.04.2010, is cancelled, on receiving further report from the Revenue Department that out of the total extent of Ac.5.26 cents of petitioners’ land, only an extent of Ac.0.21 cents is required for public purpose. In this contempt case, it is contended by Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for petitioners that the entire land of petitioners was taken possession by the Government, as evident from the letter of the Tahsildar, dated 06.05.2010. But, in the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Collector, it is categorically stated that the same is incorrect statement and only an extent of Ac.0.21 cents is taken from the petitioners. It is evident from the counter affidavits filed by the respondent and other material placed on record that the land acquired from the petitioners is only Ac.0.21 cents, but not Ac.5.26 cents, as alleged by them. As much as only Ac.0.21 cents of petitioners’ land is acquired and an exgratia amount of Rs.52,500/- is already paid to the petitioner by way of Demand Draft, dated 07.10.2011, it cannot be said that the respondent has violated the directions of this Court by not paying compensation as directed by this Court. It is to be noticed that this Court directed that if the land is needed for public purpose, same shall be acquired only as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and exgratia to be paid in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1307, dated 23rd December 1993. In view of the stand of the respondent that compensation is already paid for Ac.0.21 cents of land, which was acquired from the petitioners, it cannot be said that the respondent has violated the directions of this Court, so as to proceed further under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. For the aforesaid reasons, this contempt case is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY 23rd December 2011 ajr