THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO.622 OF 2010 Dated 2nd August, 2010 Between: Chandra Reddy per LRs. 1.C.Veera Reddy and two others …Petitioners and Mutyal Raju …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: None appeared Counsel for respondents: AGP for Land Acquisition. The Court made the following ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 28.12.2007 in Writ Petition No.27973 of 2007. Though this Contempt Case was posted on a number of occasions, the counsel for the petitioners has not been present. Even today, he is absent. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Land Acquisition and perused the record. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.27973 of 2007 for a Mandamus to direct the respondent to dispose of their application dated 24.08.2006 under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) for redetermination of the market value in terms of award dated 27.02.2006 in O.P.No.4 of 2001 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 28.12.2007, wherein the respondent was directed to consider the petitioners’ application and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Alleging non-compliance with the said order, the petitioners filed the present Contempt Case. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Sub-Collector, Vikarabad, filed a counter-affidavit, wherein he, inter alia, stated that after obtaining legal advice from the Government Pleader, the Land Acquisition Officer has filed LAAS (SR) No.4601 of 2008 on 03.05.2008 against the judgment and decree in O.P.No.4 of 2001; that the file was returned by the Registry and as there was delay in representation, an application for condonation of delay was filed and that the said application was allowed and the delay was condoned by this Court by order dated 19.01.2010. It was further stated that the application for condonation of delay of 688 days in filing the appeal is pending. The respondent thus pleaded that as the judgment and decree with reference to which the petitioners seek enhancement under Section 28-A of the Act is subject matter of the appeal, the petitioners’ application could not be disposed of on the basis of the said order. The respondent has further stated that he has taken charge of the Office of the Sub-Collector on 30.01.2009 and that the petitioners were sent two memos dated 27.04.2010 and 17.07.2010, wherein they were informed about the filing and pendency of the appeal and that their application would be considered immediately after disposal of the said appeal. Having regard to the facts contained in the counter-affidavit referred to above, I am of the opinion that the respondent has not committed wilful violation of the order of this Court and that non- disposal of the petitioners’ application is due to legitimate reasons. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any reason to proceed further with the Contempt Case. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 2nd August, 2010 vrn