THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.C.Nos.1727 of 2009 and 1240 to 1251, 1266, 1267, 1268, 1269 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners filed W.P.No.1705 of 2009 and batch, stating that the applications filed by them for availing the benefit under G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008, was not extended to them. It was pleaded that they have acquired title, or interest in different extents of the land in survey No.124/ru of Gopanpally Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, several years ago. On coming to know that the land belongs to Government, they submitted applications for regularization. The writ petitions were disposed of through individual orders, directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the applications submitted by the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. These contempt cases are filed alleging that the respondents have not taken any steps in the matter. On behalf of respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. The manner in which the lands were entered in various revenue records, are mentioned. It is ultimately stated that by virtue of the orders passed by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, the entries in the revenue records were modified on 15.10.2008 in favour of a private individual, by name, Bikshapati. It is further stated that, since the land applied for by the petitioners does not belong to Government, no benefit under G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16.02.2008, can be extended. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that the respondents have treated the land in question as Government land, as is evident from the stand taken by them in W.P.No.19567 of 2006 disposed of by a Division Bench on 04.12.2006 and W.P.No.8850 of 2006 on 05.06.2006 by a learned single Judge. If the same state of affairs continued, this Court would have certainly objected to the stand taken by them now. It is clearly mentioned that in the year 2008, the statutory appeal/revision was decided by the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration passed orders, dated 25.09.2008, in favour of one Mr.Bikshapati, in respect of the said land, and those orders came to be implemented. Further contentions are also advanced to the effect that the purchase made by the petitioners is much earlier i.e. the year 1992. Even if what is pleaded by the petitioners is true, this Court cannot undertake adjudication into those aspects. In case, they have got any grievance as to the determination of the nature of the land or adjudication of rights, vis-à-vis the same, they have to work out their remedies by instituting the proceedings before the competent forum. The scope of the contempt case is very limited. Once the respondents take the plea that the land does not belong to them, this Court cannot compel them to extend the benefit under the G.O. The Contempt Cases are closed, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies in accordance with law. The proceedings enclosed to the counter-affidavit shall be treated as those indicating the stand of the respondents. It shall be open to the petitioners to work out their remedies. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.13.09.2010. GJ