HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CONTEMPT CASE NO.1768 OF 2008 Date:08.10.2009 Between: Pothireddy Obulamma and 25 others .... Petitioners. And: Ch. Mohan Rao,Special Collector, GNSS, Kadapa District and another ....Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CONTEMPT CASE NO.1768 OF 2008 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed complaining wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in implementing the orders made in W.P.M.P.No.31070 of 2005 in Writ Petition No.24178 of 2005 dated 09.06.2006 whereunder the stay of dispossession of the petitioners from their structures pending disposal of the petition was granted. It is the case of the petitioners that inspite of there being such a direction, the petitioners were dispossessed from their respective structures. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated that the Joint Collector, Kurnool was appointed as the Special Officer for Nallagondugaripalli village in terms of the G.O.Rt.No.553, I&CAD (PW Wing T.G.P.II) Department dated 30.10.2003 and the Special Officer, after inspecting the lands to be acquired in Nallagondugaripalli village, submitted his report to the Chairman, District Empowered Committee, Kadapa vide his Rc.No. G1/2802/05 dated 13.03.2006. As per the findings of the Special Officer and the Joint Collector, Kurnool, 131 structures in Nallagonduvaripalle village were found genuine. Further, the Joint Collector has reported that 25 structures intended for residential purposes and 9 structures intended for non-residential purposes were not genuine and were constructed with a view to get unlawful compensation. The 131 structures, which were reported genuine by the Special Officer, were notified for acquisition on 1.10.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’). According to the respondents, the consent award was passed under Section 11 (2) of the Act for an amount of Rs.1,90,34,520/- vide Award No.1 of 2006-2007 dated 30.6.2006 and paid the compensation for the land and structures notified for acquisition. Therefore, since the structures raised by the petitioners were unlawful and not genuine, the compensation was not fixed and these structures were not notified under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Admittedly in the notification issued on 1.10.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Act, the structures in question were not notified and the petitioners have also not raised any objections before the respondents at the time of passing of the Award. Under those circumstances in a Contempt Case like this, it is difficult for this Court to go into the merits and de-merits as to the legality or illegality of the inclusion or non- inclusion of the structures in notification issued under section 4 (1) of the Act for the purpose of directing the respondents to pay compensation etc. The contempt case is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. _______________ C.V.RAMULU,J Date:08.10.2009. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CONTEMPT CASE NO.1768 OF 2008 ORDER: DATE:08.10.2009 Gk.