THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No.899 of 2011 Dated 29th July, 2011 Between: Roop Kumar and another …Petitioners And Anil Chandra Punetha …Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Avinash Desai Counsel for respondent: --- The Court made the following: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 18.09.2010, in W.P.No.12306 of 2010. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition. The petitioners filed W.P.No.12306 of 2010 on the apprehension that respondent No.1 was likely to refund a sum of Rs.91,80,000/- deposited by them for regularisation of land admeasuring Acs.7.00 in Survey No.1007/A of Kukatpally Village, Hyderabad under the Urban Land Ceiling proceedings on the basis of an opinion rendered by respondent No.2. This Court disposed of the said writ petition with the direction to respondent No.1 to hear the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 36 or their representatives before taking a final decision on the claim for refund of the amount. It was further directed that respondent No.1 shall issue notices to petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3 in representative capacities, receive the material from them and take a decision after hearing the said parties in-person or through their representatives. In purported compliance of the said order, respondent No.1 has passed order, dated 23.06.2011, wherein it has declined to settle the claims of the petitioners in view of pendency of O.S.No.608 of 2008 filed by the contesting parties and with the advise to the parties to approach the civil Court as per law. At the hearing, Sri Avinash Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners, made strenuous efforts to convince this Court that by declining to adjudicate the claims of the parties, respondent No.1 has committed contempt of the order of this Court in W.P.No.12036 of 2010. After carefully considering this submission and the scope of the order of this Court in the writ petition, I am of the opinion that respondent No.1 has not committed any contempt. The direction given to respondent No.1 in W.P.No.12036 of 2010 was in the context of the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that respondent No.1 is likely to be influenced by the opinion of respondent No.2, and may return the amount of Rs.91,80,000/- to respondent Nos.3 to 36 on the basis of such opinion. It is in the background of the said fact that this Court has directed respondent No.1 to hear both the parties and take a decision on the claims. In my opinion, the direction to take a decision confers the discretion on respondent No.1 not to take a decision on merits. The question whether a decision not to adjudicate on the claims of the parties in view of the pendency of the civil Court is correct or not does not arise in this contempt case. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the decision of respondent No.1 in declining to adjudicate on such claims, they shall be free to initiate substantive proceedings in order to question such a decision. But by no means, it can be said that by declining to adjudicate the claims of the parties on merits, respondent No.1 has committed violation of the order of this Court. Subject to the above observations, the contempt case is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th July, 2011 VGB