HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.674 of 2011 Date:09.09.2011 Between: All Poor Labour Society, Narasimharaopet, Tadepalligudem, Reptd by its President- K.V.Ramasastry. ..... Petitioner AND Smt A.Vani Prasad, District Collector and Magistrate, West Godavari, Eluru and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Ananda Rao Counsel for Respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order, dated 22.10.2008, in Writ Petition No.8233 of 2002. The petitioner filed the above-mentioned Writ Petition for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not making the allotment of house sites to its members as illegal and arbitrary. Respondent No.2 in this Contempt Case, who was arrayed as respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition, filed a counter-affidavit in the said Writ Petition, wherein he has mentioned that the claims of the members of the petitioner- Society were verified by the Mandal Revenue Officer and that a report in that regard was sent by him to the respondents therein long back. It was further stated that as the lands which were proposed for acquisition belonged to a temple and are very valuable, the Government was not interested in purchasing the same in view of availability of Government vacant land at Airfield, Tadepalligudem. It was further stated that an extent of Ac.82.61 cents at Kondruprolu Village was proposed for house sites to weaker sections and that, action in that regard was already taken up by initiating Enumeration and Identification of eligible beneficiaries. In the light of the said averments contained in the counter-affidavit, the Writ Petition was disposed of on 22.10.2008, with the direction to the respondents herein to expedite the process of allotment of house sites to the petitioner-Society from out of the land identified and complete the process of allotment within a period of three months. Alleging that the respondents failed to comply with the said order, the petitioner filed the present Contempt Case. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit sworn to on 16.07.2011, wherein it was inter alia mentioned that after the disposal of Writ Petition No.8233 of 2002, the Government vide its memo No.6648/Assn/VI/01-22, Rev, dated 24.09.2007, allotted Government land of Ac.59-00 cents in R.S.Nos.385 to 389 and 396 of Kondruprolu Village and R.S.No.192/2 of Kunchanapalli Village for the purpose of house sites, duly giving exemption as they are part of air field lands in respect of which there was prohibition of alienation; that as there were many beneficiaries, the said extent of land was not sufficient for giving individual sites and therefore, it was decided to provide G + 1 category; that 574 members who were found eligible were included in the list of beneficiaries and that on account of the above reasons, there was delay in compliance of the order, dated 22.10.2008, of this Court in Writ Petition No.8233 of 2002. Respondent No.2 filed another counter-affidavit sworn to on 29.08.2011, wherein it is stated that respondent No.1, vide her proceedings in Roc.E2/383/2011, dated 26.08.2011, directed respondent No.2 to get the list of 574 beneficiaries verified by forming teams consisting of Revenue, Municipality and Housing Officials as several years have lapsed since the list of beneficiaries was prepared; that the Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem, and his field staff along with the staff of Housing/Municipality have verified the list of 574 beneficiaries, out of whom only 261 were found eligible; and that accordingly, a list was submitted to respondent No.2, who, in trun, approved the list and directed the Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem vide his proceedings in Roc.2103/2009(B), dated 26.08.2011, to issue house site pattas to all the beneficiaries. It is further stated that the Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem, has accordingly granted house site pattas to all the 261 beneficiaries who belong to the petitioner’s society allotting the land of Ac.7-05 cents in R.S.No.396 of Kondruprolu Village. On these facts, respondent No.2 pleaded compliance with the order, dated 22.10.2008 of this Court in Writ Petition No.8233 of 2002. On 02.09.2011, this Court has noticed discrepancy in proceedings dated 26.08.2011 of respondent No.2 with reference to the date of report of the Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem. At the hearing, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, appearing for the respondents, has explained that the date of report of the Tahsildar mentioned in reference No.4 cited in the said proceedings of respondent No.2 is wrongly mentioned as 27.08.2011 instead of 26.08.2011. Learned Government Pleader has produced the record which contains the direction given by respondent No.1 on 16.08.2011 for verification of the genuine members of the petitioner-Society, the report, dated 26.08.2011, of the Tahsildar, filed after such verification, and the order, dated 26.08.2011 of respondent No.2. On a perusal of these proceedings, I am of the view that the respondents have identified the genuine members of the petitioner-Society for grant of the benefit of house sites and accordingly complied with the order of this Court though belatedly. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tahsildar who was obviously in a hurry on account of the pendency of Contempt Case has forcibly obtained the signatures of nine intended beneficiaries showing that they have received the house site pattas even though no such pattas were delivered to them. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition while denying this submission, however, stated that the respondents will ensure that all the 261 beneficiaries will be given the house site pattas in pursuance of the order, dated 26.08.2011, of respondent No.2. In the light of the above facts, I am of the opinion that the respondents have not willfully violated the order, dated 22.10.2008, of this Court. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the pruning of the beneficiaries list, which resulted in elimination of a major chunk of the members, whose names were found in the earlier list, it shall be free to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the Contempt Case is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Contempt Case, C.A.Nos.574 and 575 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim reliefs are dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th September, 2011 DR