IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CONTEMPT CASE No.958 of 2009 In W.P.No.225 of 2009 Between: Bhuvanagiri Nagalingam ..... PETITIONER AND Government of A.P.rep.by its Revenue Divisional Officer, M.Venkateswararao, And another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CONTEMPT CASE No.958 of 2009 in WRIT PETITION No.225 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This contempt case has been filed complaining that the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, Renigunta, Chittoor District has willfully and wantonly violated the orders of this Court passed in W.P.225/2009 dated 12.01.2009. The petitioner filed W.P.225/2009 to declare the action of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Chittoor District in not disposing of the Appeal No.G-2857/2008 filed by him against the orders of the Tahsildar, Renigunta, Chittoor District in R.Dis.B/232/2007 dated 31.10.2007 and in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land of an extent of Ac.4.00 in Sy.No.359/1 and Ac.0.96 cents in Sy.No.360/7A situated at Agraharam village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that the said writ petition was disposed of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati to consider and dispose of the appeal filed by him as expeditiously as possible, and pending disposal of the said appeal, status quo obtaining as on the date of disposal of the writ petition is directed to be maintained. It is stated that the appeal was disposed of vide proceedings D.Dis.G/2857/08, dated 18.07.2009 dismissing the appeal upholding the orders of the Tahsildar, Renigunta, and against the said order, it is stated that a revision has been filed before the Joint Collector and the same is pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner complains that during pendency of the appeal, status quo as ordered by this Court was not strictly maintained, and in paragraph-5 of the counter, it is stated that on receipt of the orders of this Court, the work of construction of houses was stopped in the schedule land. However, it is stated that the structures in the schedule land were already completed before passing the orders in the writ petition. It is stated that the said plea taken by the respondents is contradictory and it cannot be said that when the construction of the work is stopped, the question of completing of structures prior to receipt of the orders of this Court does not arise. I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the said contention, as it cannot be said that the structures means the completed structures or unfinished structures. As unfinished structures were already there before receipt of the orders of this Court, it cannot be said that there is willful disobedience on the part of the respondents. It is stated that they have stopped the work of construction of houses after receipt of the orders of this Court. Therefore, I do not see any willful or intentional disobedience of the orders of this Court on the part of the respondents. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 20.11.2009 Dsr