IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Date:13.04.2010. C.C.NO.270 OF 2010. Between: Badrivishal Pitti, died per L.Rs and others ..... PETITIONERS AND Samir Sharma and others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the order passed in W.P.No.3331 of 2000 dated 16.02.2009 whereunder the respondents were directed to initiate proceedings for acquisition of the western side of the petitioners’ premises as contemplated under Section 147 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 within a period of six (6) months. 2. In response to the notice ordered, the Assistant City Planner, Circle-X, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation filed counter affidavit stating as under: “The petitioners have made representations on 19.06.2009 seeking to initiate LA proceedings and claiming compensation. Immediately after receipt of representation, concerned section officer along with ACP has inspected the site and taken out measurements and found that 244 Sq.yrds of site was taken for road widening. After preparation of necessary departmental formalities, the matter was referred to Special Deputy Collector, GHMC to initiate land acquisition proceedings. The Land Acquisition Officer, GHMC also initiated proceedings and published the 4(1) notification under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and same was published in the Deccan Chronicle and Andhra Jyothi on 29.03.2010. Further steps will be followed under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and necessary compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer will be paid to the petitioners as per law”. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has placed before this Court a copy of the notification dated 27.03.2010, which was published in the Deccan Chronicle and Andhra Jyothi dailies dated 29.03.2010. 4. As the proceedings have already been initiated in compliance with the order of this Court, no further enquiry is necessary in this Contempt Case. 5. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed leaving it open to the petitioners to challenge the notification, if aggrieved, by working out the appropriate remedy as available under law. __________​_ G. ROHINI, J 13th April 2010 AMD