THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO.804 OF 2010 Dated 16th July, 2010 Between: Chandramohan Agarwal and three others …Petitioners And D.Rama Rao and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri G.Rama Krishna For Sri V.Hari Haran Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri M.Surender Rao Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri Ravindra Yanamandra The Court made the following ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 06.11.2007 in Writ Petition No.23552 of 2007. The petitioners in this Contempt Case filed the abovementioned writ petition. This Court, by order dated 06.11.2007, directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of land admeasuring Ac.15.11 guntas situated in Survey Nos.844, 845, 846, 847 and 848 of Patancheru Village and Mandal, Medak District. According to the petitioners, on 28.01.2010, the Contractor deployed by the respondents has scooped soil from the adjacent land and dumped the same over a part of the land, which is the subject matter of the writ petition, and thereby the abovementioned interim order of this Court was violated. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by respondent No.2, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that the abovementioned land was also acquired along with other lands and that in view of the interim order passed in the writ petition, the respondents have not undertaken any work and that the concessionaire was entrusted with the execution of a bridge work. In connection with execution of pier work, the concessionaire formed a bund temporarily to divert water from the construction area and excavated soil from open land and that on receipt of notice by respondent No.2, and on his instructions, the concessionaire removed the bund and diverted the water into its original course. Respondent No.2 further stated that the land in question was not handed over to the concessionaire. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2, I am satisfied that the action complained of does not constitute a deliberate attempt to violate the order of this Court. It is evident from the counter-affidavit referred to above that corrective steps have been taken on receipt of the notice from the petitioners. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to proceed further against the respondents in the Contempt Case. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 16th July, 2010 vrn