THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.781 of 2011 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging that the respondents have violated the directions issued by this Court in order, dated 20.11.2009 passed in WPMP.No.33095 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.25402 of 2009. Petitioner is an association. It claims that its members are in possession of the sites allotted to them. This Court by way of interim order, dated 20.11.2009 passed in WPMP.No.33095 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.25402 of 2009, issued direction to the respondents not to dispossess the members of the petitioner association from the plots in land covered by Survey No.757 of Hanamkonda Village and Mandal, Warangal District, if they are in possession as on the said date. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of such direction, the respondents were illegally interfered with the constructions and removed the structures raised by its members. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the second respondent – Tahsildar, Hanamkonda Mandal. In the said counter-affidavit, it is stated that land to an extent of Acs.14.32 guntas in Survey No.757 was declared as an excess land under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and that some portion of the land was in possession and some portion was occupied by some third parties and that out of an extent of Acs.9.07 guntas of land, an extent of Acs.4.00 guntas of land was assigned to 155 landless poor persons, who are stone crushers, vide proceedings No.A/857/2003, dated 03.07.2003 issued by the then Tahsildar, Hanamkonda, assigning an extent of 80 sq.yards each. It is further stated that while assigning the same, there was a condition imposed to build a house within the specified period but as the assignees have violated the conditions of patta, orders of resumption were passed. It is further stated that land admeasuring Acs.3.00 guntas was allotted to Bhadrakali Temple by the then Tahsildar, Hanamkonda on 10.11.2008 and since then, the said land is in possession of the temple. It is also stated that the temple authorities have developed the land and put the board to that effect. As much as the interim order passed by this Court is a conditional one and as it is stated in the counter-affidavit that the orders of resumption were passed, possession of the land was taken and the same was handed over to the fifth respondent temple on 10.11.2008, it cannot be said that the respondents have willfully and deliberately violated the directions issued by this Court. Leaving open to the petitioner association to question the orders of resumption, if it is so aggrieved, this Contempt Case is dismissed. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd AUGUST, 2011. kvni