THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO.1752 OF 2009 Dated 8th April, 2010 Between: Smt B.Vinodhini …Petitioner And M.Dana Kishore …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Srinivas Polavarapu Counsel for the respondent: G.P for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 13.03.2009 passed in C.C.No.148 of 2009. I have heard Sri Polavarapu Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing the respondent. The petitioner filed W.P.No.20680 of 2005 for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in taking away her property admeasuring 3000 square yards in Survey No.1 of Raidurga Panmaktha Village, for laying road leading from Mehedipatnam to Lingampally without following due process of law and paying compensation as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to initiate land acquisition proceedings for the land taken away by the respondents or alternatively to direct the respondents to provide suitable, alternative and equivalent property in the nearby area. This Court, after hearing both the parties, disposed of the said writ petition, by order dated 27.06.2008, with the direction to respondent No.3 to consider and examine the grievance of the petitioner by giving notice to and hearing her or her representative. It was further directed that if respondent No.3 comes to the conclusion that the property, which was allegedly taken over for the purpose of construction of road belongs to the petitioner, he shall initiate immediate steps to compensate her for taking over the land in accordance with law either by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) or any other legal process, which is permissible in this regard. The said exercise was directed to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Alleging wilful disobedience of the said order, the petitioner filed C.C.No.148 of 2009, wherein respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit. In paragraph 5 of the said counter-affidavit, he stated as under: “I submit that there is a vacant Government land in Sy.No.28 of Khajaguda Village, Serlingampally Mandal, which is identified for allotment as alternate land to the real owners.” In terms of the said statement, the learned Government Pleader submitted to the Court, at the hearing of the said Contempt Case, that if the petitioner shows her title over the balance extent of land excluding 695 square yards, the respondent is prepared to allot the alternative land in lieu of payment of compensation, which was already identified in Survey No.28 of Khajaguda Village, Serlingampally Mandal. The said statement of the learned Government Pleader was placed on record and the contempt case was accordingly disposed of. The petitioner filed the present Contempt Case alleging that the abovementioned undertaking given by respondent No.3 has not been complied with. On receipt of notice, the respondent filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that after inspection, the Tahsildar submitted proposal for allotment of alternative land and that on examination of the same, he has decided to initiate land acquisition proceedings instead of allotment of alternative land. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the respondent has committed wilful disobedience of the order of this Court, which was passed based on his own undertaking and therefore, he is liable for punishment for contempt. It is no doubt true that the respondent has heldout that an alternative land was identified and the same will be allotted to the petitioner. However, instead of allotting the alternative land, he has decided to initiate land acquisition proceedings and accordingly such proceedings have already been initiated and are stated to be at advanced stage. As noted above, this Court has, while disposing of the writ petition, given option to the respondent either to initiate land acquisition proceedings or compensate the petitioner through any other legal process. Therefore, going by the relief granted by this Court, it cannot be said that initiation of land acquisition proceedings is in violation of the order passed by this Court in the writ petition. Merely because at one stage, the respondent has entertained an idea of allotting alternative land and allowed the contempt case to be closed on that premise, abandoning the said course and resorting to the provisions of the Act for payment of compensation to the petitioner cannot be said to be constituting contempt of Court. Eventually the petitioner is concerned with compensation payable to her in law. When the respondent is prepared to pay compensation in accordance with law, the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance on account of the fact that the respondent is not prepared to provide alternative land. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any reason to entertain the Contempt Case and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the learned Government Pleader, on instructions, undertakes that the respondent will complete the land acquisition proceedings and pass award within a period of six (6) weeks from today. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 8th April, 2010 vrn