THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.C.No.226 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed W.P.No.26311 of 2009, feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in passing orders, in compliance of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.5785 of 2000, dated 26.02.2003, pertaining to the payment of compensation for land in survey No.23 of Mahabubabad, Warangal District. The writ petition was disposed of on 09.12.2009, directing the 2nd respondent to pass orders on the representation dated 17.04.2003 within six weeks. This Contempt Case is filed alleging that the respondents have not complied with the directions issued by this Court. Separate counter-affidavits are filed by respondents 2 and 4 and common counter-affidavit is filed by respondents 6 to 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, learned Government Pleader for Transport and learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC. The land of the petitioner was acquired by the Government of A.P., for construction of a bus depot and bus stand by the APSRTC. However, there was some dispute as to the exact extent that was acquired from the petitioner. Representations were made and proceedings were instituted. This Court ultimately directed the 2nd respondent to pass an order on the representation made by the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the land in dispute was held by the Panchayat Raj Department and permission was accorded for its alienation. He ultimately passed an order dated 16.06.2011 making his stand clear on the representation made by the petitioner. Across the bar, it is stated that the observation made by the 2nd respondent that records are not available in the said proceedings is not correct, in view of the counter-affidavit filed by the 4th respondent. These, however, are matters, which can be verified and adjudicated, in case the petitioner institutes the proceedings against the order passed by the 2nd respondent. Though there was some delay on the part of the 2nd respondent, in complying with the direction, he has ultimately made his stand clear. Therefore, the Contempt Case is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to canvass the remedies vis-à-vis the proceedings dated 16.06.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated: 21.06.2011 GJ