THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Contempt Case No.358 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners state that they were displaced in the course of construction of Kandaleru Reservoir in Nellore District and they are residing, in Nellore Town, in rented houses. They made a representation, dated 17.08.2006, with a request to provide house sites in survey No.2180 of Kotturu Village, abutting Nellore Town. Feeling aggrieved by the alleged in action on the part of the respondents, the petitioners filed W.P.No.19622 o 2006. The writ petition was disposed of, at the stage of admission, on 27.02.2009, directing that the 1st respondent i.e. the District Collector, Nellore, shall consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. This Contempt Case is filed alleging that the 1st respondent did not take any steps, despite the orders of this Court. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that after receipt of the orders of this Court, the Collector, directed the Tahsildar to cause inspection and submit a report, and that the report has revealed that, while some of the petitioners have been provided house site and financial aid to the tune of Rs.10,000/-, each, other petitioners are residing in different mandals. An order mentioning these facts was passed on 08.04.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The direction issued by this Court was to the effect that the representation made by the petitioners for allotment of house sites be considered. There was indeed delay on the part of the respondents in passing the orders within the time stipulated by the Court. That obviously was on account of the process of verification undertaken by them. The Collector has since passed an order, dated 08.04.2010 indicating the relevant facts. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the same, they have to pursue the remedies before the appropriate forum. Hence, the Contempt Case is closed, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies vis-à-vis the order, dated 08.04.2010. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.19.04.2010. GJ