THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.610 of 2010 (Dated : 27-10-2010) Between; Mettu Praveen S/o late Pentaiah, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District …Petitioner A n d Sri Narayana Reddy Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, HUDA and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.610 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed complaining disobedience of the order dated 3.11.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.19574 of 2007. 2. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 20-04- 2010. The respondent entered appearance and filed counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that reference has been made to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the matter is pending before the civil Court for re-determination of the compensation. Para 11 of the counter affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus:- “ I submit that as per orders of this Hon’ble Court 50% of the decretal amount of Rs.4,27,160/- to the total extent of Ac.8-26 gts in Sy.No.372 was deposited in the court on 14-2-2002. As per this Hon’ble Court’s order in A.S.No.2909/2001 an amount of Rs.4,86,912/- towards the balance decretal amount was also deposited on 4- 7-2007 in the Hon’ble Addl. District Judge, Medak in respect of land in Sy.No.372/E admeasuring Ac.8-26 gts. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has filed W.P.No.19574/2007 on the file of this Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court was pleased to allow the writ petition to the extent indicated therein. The direction given in the writ petition was that the petitions filed by the petitioner shall be disposed of in accordance with law. I have considered and disposed of the application filed by the petitioner dated 10-10-2001 and 3-8-2007 and directed the petitioner to approach the civil Court i.e, Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy and seek appropriate relief vide Proc.dated 15-1-2010. As the issue of enhancement of compensation for the land in Sy. No.372/E to an extent of Ac.8-26 gts was already referred U/s 18 of the Act, on the application made by rival claimants and the enhanced amounts were also deposited in the civil Court, the plea for re- determination of compensation does not arise. I submit that once the case is referred to civil Court u/s 18 of L.A.Act question of redetermining the compensation by L.A.O u/s 28A of L.A.Act does not arise. In the instant case, the enhanced compensation was also deposited in the civil Court. The petitioner can approach the civil Court claiming the compensation for the land in question.” 3. When the contempt case came up for admission, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 4. The direction given in the writ petition is to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 10.10.2001 and 3.8.2007 and pass appropriate orders. It is stated in the counter affidavit that appropriate orders have been passed, vide proceedings dated 15.01.2010. The issuance of proceedings dated 15.01.2010 amounts to substantial compliance of the direction given by this Court. 5. There are no merits in the contempt case and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.27-10-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.610 of 2010 Trd. to CMSO (Dated : 27-10-2010)