THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.C. No. 1327 of 2010 Oral order: Alleging that the respondents have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the order dated 21.10.1999 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 22511 of 2009, the petitioners filed the present contempt case to punish the respondents for contempt. By the above order dated 21.10.1999, non-compliance of which by the respondents is alleged in this contempt case, this Court disposed of the writ petition at the stage of admission directing respondent No.2 to consider the application dated 04.11.2008 of the petitioners, survey the land with reference to the sale deeds under which they purchased the land, and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pursuant to the notice ordered by this Court, respondent No.2, namely the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District, filed counter stating that they have complied with the orders of this Court. He stated that the petitioners made application for sub-division of the land to the Tahsildar, Rajednranagar Mandal. Pursuant thereto, the Mandal Surveyor, made several attempts to conduct survey and prepare sub-division records by issuing notice to the petitioners, but when he went to the land they found that the petitioners are not in possession of the land and that the land claimed by the petitioners is within the compound wall of Agriculture University and the rest of the land is covered by the inner Ring Road, and that the names of the persons in whose favour transfer has been made by proper mutation are found in the revenue records, but not of the petitioners. That as per Circular No. N1/1408/2007, dated 13.07.2007 of the Commissioner of Survey Settlement and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, sub-division will be done only if the applicants are in actual possession on ground and their possession is tallying with the documents. Accordingly, the Mandal Surveyor submitted his report to the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, stating that the request of the petitioners for sub-division cannot be complied with because they are not in actual possession of the land. That based on such report, the Tahsildar, Rajendranagar Mandal, and himself vide separate proceedings in Memo dated 30.09.2010 and 01.10.2010 informed the petitioners their request cannot be complied with. Since the respondents in compliance of the orders of this Court, passed orders dated 30.09.2010 and 01.10.2010, by considering the application dated 04.11.2008 of the petitioner, they cannot be said to have committed contempt of the orders of this Court. Hence, the contempt case is closed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to assail the orders dated 30.09.2010 and 01.10.2010 passed by the respondents in separate proceedings, if so advised. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 15th December, 2010 KSR