THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.1986 of 2008 and C.C.No.537 of 2008 ORDER: W.P.No.1986 of 2008 has been filed questioning the order of the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, in Rc.No.2012/2007/E1, dated 23-01-2008, in cancelling house site patta in respect of the land admeasuring 3 cents in Sy.No.62 (part) of Kasimkota village on the ground that the said land is useful for M.P.Elementary School and that patta certificate has been granted in favour of the petitioner by mistake. Admittedly, the petitioner has not violated any terms and conditions of the assignment. This court while admitting the writ petition on 05-02-2008, directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the land admeasuring 3 cents in Sy.No.62 (part) of Kasimkota Village, until alternative land of 3 cents is assigned in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that the said order of this court, dated 05-02-2008, in W.P.M.P.No.2533 of 2008 has been violated, as without assigning alternative house site, the petitioner is sought to be dispossessed from the land in question and therefore, C.C.No.537 of 2008 has been filed. In the contempt case, a counter has been filed stating that the said house site was allotted in favour of the petitioner on 03-06-2006 by mistake, though the said land is situated adjoining M.P.Elementary School of Kasimkota village. Accordingly, after issuing show cause notice, the said house site patta was cancelled and the respondents are willing to allot an alternative land to the petitioner in Sy.No.11 (part) or in Sy.No.11 of Kasimkota Village and Mandal. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that alternative house site admeasuring 3 cents was allotted in favour of the petitioner, in Plot No.79 in Sy.No.11 (part) of Kasimkota village, bounded on the East : road, South : agricultural land, West: vacant site and North: road, vide proceedings of the Tahsildar in Ref.No.382/2006, dated -06-2008 and it is stated that when the said patta certificate was offered to the son of the petitioner by showing the land physically, he refused to receive the same. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner denied the said contention that the son of the petitioner refused to receive the house site patta. Therefore, this court insisted the learned Government Pleader to get the said house site patta and handover the same to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Government Pleader handed over the original house site patta to the counsel for the petitioner and in fact, he also endorsed the same on the docket order. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the respondents willfully or intentionally violated the order of this court. Accordingly, the writ petition as well as contempt case are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 11-07-2008 Prv