THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1007 of 2009 22.01.2010 Between: Rahanath Unnisa Begum and others ….Petitioners AND Smt K.Damayanthi, IAS, District Collector, Mahaboobnagar And another. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1007 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioners own Acs.2.26 guntas in survey No.915 of Veerannapet area of Mahaboobnagar town. When the land was taken for the purpose of weaker sections’ housing without following due process of law, they filed the writ petition. The same being W.P.No.30741 of 1998 was disposed of by this Court on 06.12.2007 directing first respondent to initiate land acquisition proceedings within a period of three months from the date of receipt of said order and also gave liberty to first respondent to negotiate with the petitioners for passing consent award. Alleging that the District Collector has not taken necessary action as directed by this Court, present contempt case is filed. This Court ordered notice to respondents. After receiving notice, the District Collector – first respondent filed counter. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that pursuant to the Mandamus issued by this Court on 06.12.2007, land acquisition proceedings were initiated. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for brevity) was published on 18.09.2008, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 22.09.2008. The P.V. statement was approved on 28.03.2009. Simultaneously, the Commissioner of Social Welfare was addressed to release an amount of Rs.1.22 crores and a report was also sent to the Government. In the meanwhile, award enquiry was completed. It is also stated that efforts were made to allot alternative site to petitioners, who refused to accept the same. Further, it is stated that when the petitioners refused to accept alternative site, another site admeasuring Acs.2.09 guntas in survey No.921 was proposed to be allotted to petitioners and they were asked to give their willingness. They did not so far respond to the same. The District Collector also expressed regret for the delay in completion of acquisition proceedings. This Court heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel representing Advocate General. A perusal of counter affidavit would show that though there is some delay, necessary notifications and declarations were published in September, 2008 and award enquiry was also completed. Though there is some delay, it is condonable delay and there is substantial compliance with the orders of this Court. Therefore, it is not necessary to further pursue the contempt case. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 22.01.2010 pln