THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA CONTEMPT CASE No.1309 of 2009 ORDER: This contempt case is filed complaining willful disobedience on the part of the respondents 2 and 3 herein in complying with the order dated 12.09.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.No.19905 of 2008, whereunder the writ petition filed by the petitioners, questioning the inaction of the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District, in marking the boundaries of house sites assigned to them by the Government in spite of their several representations, was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the application, if any to be submitted by the petitioners for demarcation of the plots, which were given to them by way of pattas in the year 2003, and take necessary action for demarcating the land. The 3rd respondent-Commissioner of Ongole Municipality has filed a counter affidavit stating that the subject land and some other property in T.S.No.14/1 is Voora Tank land exclusively belongs to Ongole Municipality, and, as such, the revenue authorities have no right to grant pattas over the same either to the petitioners or to third parties and the alleged pattas, under which the petitioners are stated to have been granted the subject land, are fake documents brought into existence to get unlawful gain. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District, wherein it is stated that pursuant to receipt of the application dated 14.10.2008 of the petitioners along with a copy of the orders dated 12.09.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.No.19905 of 2008, a letter has been addressed to the 3rd respondent, for demarcation of the land in T.S.No.14/1 since the said land is located in Ongole Municipality, and thereupon, the 3rd respondent, vide his letter in ROC.No.6877/08/G1, dated 17.02.2009, informed that the land in T.S.No.14/1 of Ongole Town, which is classified as “Uracheruvu”, is vested with Ongole Municipality as per G.O.Ms.No.1857, dated 22.09.1927, and with respect to the said land, no layout was approved by the competent authority and no Council Resolution is passed and approved by the Government and, therefore, it is not possible to demarcate the boundaries to the lands in T.S.No.14/1. It is also stated that on the basis of the information furnished by the 3rd respondent, in his letter dated 17.02.2009, an endorsement to that effect has been issued to the petitioners on 19.10.2009, stating the reasons for not considering their claim. In view of the aforesaid averments of the counter affidavits, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed contempt of the orders of this Court and the contempt case is liable to be closed. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be given liberty to avail appropriate remedies available to them, under law, to challenge the endorsement dated 19.10.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed, reserving the liberty as sought for. ______________ N.V.RAMANA,J 30.11.2009 v v