IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND NINE ONLY CONTEMPT CASE No.283 of 2009 Between: Meenige Lakshmi Reddy and five others. … Petitioners And: Smt.Madhavilatha, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, Kurnool District. … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy. Counsel for the Respondent: Sri D.Krishna Murthy, G.P. for Revenue. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 29-7-2008 in Writ Petition No.16295 of 2008. Heard Sri K.Ratanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for the sole respondent in the Contempt Case. By the above-mentioned order, dated 29-7-2008, in Writ Petition No.16295 of 2008, this Court directed the respondent herein to consider the representations of the petitioners and if it is found that the petitioners were similarly placed as Smt.M.Ramalingamma, their representations shall be positively considered for deletion of their lands from acquisition. In this Contempt Case, it is alleged that despite expiry of time limit of six weeks stipulated by this Court in the above-mentioned order, the representation was not disposed of and thereby the respondent committed contempt. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent it is, inter alia, stated that having regard to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.12435 of 1986 the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal, issued proceedings, dated 10-4-2007, deleting the land admeasuring Ac.6.88 cents in Survey No.2314 of Nandyal village and Mandal, belonging to the petitioner in the said Writ Petition from the acquisition proceedings; that, thereafter, one Smt.M.Ramalingamma, W/o.late Mantri Narasimhulu, submitted representation dated 30-4-2007 to the respondent for a similar relief; and that by order dated 21-6-2007 an extent of Ac.0.77½ cents belonging to her was deleted from acquisition. It is further stated that thereafter one Sri Rodda Srinivasulu and two others filed Writ Petition No.818 of 2008 in this Court for a similar relief, which was disposed of on 22-1-2008; and that the petitioners herein filed Writ Petition No.16295 of 2008, which was also disposed of by this Court on 29-7- 2008. The respondent has taken the stand that neither Smt.M.Ramalingamma nor the petitioners in the above mentioned Writ Petitions are entitled to seek deletion of the lands from the acquisition proceedings because the said proceedings were completed and the lands got vested in the Government in the year 1986 itself; that as order, dated 21-6-2007, passed in favour of Smt.M.Ramalingamma, was obtained fraudulently, show cause notice, dated 27-6-2009, was issued to the said person; and that after considering the explanation filed by her, order dated 7-7-2009 was passed recalling order dated 21-6-2007 and returning compensation amount of Rs.40,256-64 ps., to her. It is further stated that the petitioners in this Contempt Case are, therefore, not entitled for re-conveyance of the land and that, accordingly, order dated 7-7-2009 was passed informing the petitioners that they are not entitled to deletion of their lands from acquisition. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that there was absolutely no fraud played by the petitioners or anybody else; and that, even according to the stand taken by the respondents before the Civil Court - viz., Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, in O.P.No.113 of 1987 - entire acquisition proceedings were quashed and, therefore, the land did not vest in the Government. In my considered view, the respondent has not committed any contempt, because the relief granted to the petitioners was only to the extent that if the land was released in favour of Smt.M.Ramalingamma, the same benefit should also be extended to the petitioners. Admittedly, the benefit given to Smt. M.Ramalingamma was subsequently withdrawn. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent has violated the order of this Court by not releasing the lands of the petitioners from acquisition. If withdrawal of benefit in favour of Smt. M.Ramalingamma was illegal, that gives rise to a different cause of action to her to question the same. The petitioners shall also be free to question order dated 7-7-2009, wherein the petitioners’ request for deletion of their lands from acquisition was rejected. In this view of the matter, the Contempt Case is dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:21-8-2009 MNR