THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Contempt Case No.35 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, alleging wilful disobedience on the part of the respondent in complying with the directions issued by this Court on 28.02.2001 in W.P.No.2178 of 19i99. The petitioner is an employees’ co-operative housing society. Its members having purchased the land, constructed residential houses. Subsequently, it is noticed that the vendor of the society is only a tenant and the original owner of the land is the respondent- Temple. On a representation filed by the petitioner, recommendation was made by the Commissioner of Endowments for alienation of the said land in favour of the occupants. Pleading that no further action has been taken by the Government or Temple, pursuant to the recommendation made by the Commissioner of Endowments, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.20178 of 1999. This Court by order dated 28.02.2001 disposed of the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to file an application before the respondent, expressing its willingness to purchase the land at the rates quoted by the Government, with a direction to the Executive Officer to pass appropriate orders. In the contempt case, it is the case of the petitioner that inasmuch as the rates were already fixed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.578 dated 19.08.2000, wherein it agreed to alienate the lands to the occupants, the Executive Officer of the Temple ought to have passed orders alienating the property, which is in possession of the petitioner, at the rates notified by the Government in the said. G.O. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. I have perused the order, dated 04.12.2009 issued in R.C.No.C1/6247/99, by the Executive Officer of the Temple, wherein it is stated that the entire hill area covered by Survey No.275 of Adivivaram Village was classified as ‘Green Belt’ area in the master plan notified by the Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority and as such, there were directions not to entertain or grant any building permissions for residential or commercial purposes, in respect of the entire land in Survey No.275. It is also stated that in view of the notification issued by VUDA and further instructions issued from time to time, it is not possible for the respondent to regularize the encroachments as per the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.578, dated 19.08.2000. This Court merely permitted the petitioner to make a representation by giving a direction to the respondent to pass appropriate orders. In view of the reasons stated by the respondent in order dated 04.10.2009 itself, it cannot be said that there was wilful or deliberate violation on the part of the respondent. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by order dated 04.10.2009, it is always open to it to question the same independently, but it cannot be said that it is in violation of the directions issued by this Court, so as to proceed against the respondent under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of courts Act. The contempt case is accordingly closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the order, dated 04.10.2009 passed by the respondent. __________ 15.04.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Contempt Case No.35 of 2010 Date: 15.04.2010 JSU