HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1438 of 2011 Date : 23.12.2011 Between: A.Krishnaiah. …Petitioner And Solomon Arogyaraj, District Collector, Chittoor. …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1438 of 2011 ORDER : This contempt case is filed, alleging that the respondent-District Collector, Chittoor District has violated the orders of this Court, dated 2nd May 2008, passed in W.P.No.5066 of 2008. The father of the petitioner by name Appa Dorai was assigned agricultural land admeasuring Ac.4.89 cents in Sy.No.377/2 of Ramchandrapuram village of Sathyavedu Mandal in Chittoor District. It is the case of the petitioner that after the death of his father, he succeeded to the aforesaid property. The writ petition in W.P.No.5066 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner herein, seeking directions to the respondents therein not to dispossess him 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 the Late father of the petitioner 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 petitioner that the Tahsildar, Sathyavedu Mandal, has issued proceedings, dated 29th April 2010, for resumption of his land for using the same for public purpose, and inspite of the same, he was not paid compensation, as directed by this Court in W.P.No.5066 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 petitioner, it is stated that after obtaining consent from the petitioner, the Tahsildar, Sathyavedu, vide proceedings No.B/642/2008, 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 petitioner. 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 the said land is not required for establishment of industrial park, revised orders are issued by the Tahsildar, Sathyavedu, vide proceedings No.B/642/2008, dated 28.10.2011, cancelling the resumption orders issued on 29.04.2010, stating that the land of the petitioner is not required for public purpose, and hence, the same is not being taken possession by the Government. In the additional counter affidavit, the respondent has explained the contents of the letter, dated 02.05.2010, issued in Lr.No.B/642/2008, addressed by the Tahsildar, Sathyavedu. It is stated that the possession of land was not taken but the same is incorrectly recorded in the report of the Tahsildar, dated 02.05.2010, 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.A1/11828/2011, dated 12.12.2011. Heard Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent. In this case, it is to be noticed that at first instance, the land of the petitioner was notified by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, but noticing that the said land was assigned land, same is omitted in the declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act. Subsequently, orders, dated 29.04.2010, were passed for resumption of the land in question, but even that order is also cancelled on receiving further report from the Revenue Department that the land of the petitioner is not needed for any public purpose. In this contempt case, it is contended by Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for petitioner that the land of the petitioner was taken possession by the Government, as evident from the letter of the Tahsildar, dated 02.05.2010, issued in Lr.No.B/642/2008. But, in the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Collector, it is categorically stated that the same is incorrect statement and possession of land is not taken from the petitioner. It is evident from the counter affidavits filed by the respondent and other material placed on record that the petitioner is not dispossessed from the land in question either on account of initiation of land acquisition proceedings or subsequent resumption order passed by the Tahsildar. Even such resumption order passed is also cancelled by subsequent proceedings. As the land in question is not taken possession for any public purpose, 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 the land of petitioner is not needed for any public purpose and that no steps have been taken by the respondent to dispossess the petitioner from his land, 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