THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No.319 of 2010 Dated 30th August, 2011 Between: Smt.K.Anasuja …Petitioner And The Commissioner, L.B.Nagar Municipality, rep.by its Commissioner at L.B.Nagar, R.R.District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Ram Chandar Rao Vemuganti Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Sri C.Damodar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of orders, dated 16.12.2008, in W.P.No.5341 of 2007, and dated 06.03.2009, in W.P.M.P.No.5874 of 2009. The petitioner in this contempt case has filed W.P.No.5341 of 2007, which was disposed of by this Court with the direction to respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 30.11.2006, by making an enquiry and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. By the order, dated 06.03.2009, in W.P.M.P.No.5874 of 2009, this Court has fixed time limit for such disposal as six weeks from the date of the said order. Alleging that respondent No.1 has not complied with the said orders, the petitioner filed this contempt case. A counter affidavit and also an additional counter affidavit have been filed by respondent No.1, wherein he has explained the reasons for the delay in not passing the order as directed by this Court. The learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.1 has placed before the Court a copy of proceedings in Lr.No.319/TPS/C3/GHMC/2011, dated 27.08.2011, of respondent No.1, which shows that in pursuance of the orders passed in the writ petition and the WPMP referred to above, he issued notices to both the parties and fixed the hearing on 24.08.2011 and that while the petitioner along with two other persons were present, respondent Nos.3 and 4 were not present. After considering the claim of the petitioner, respondent No.1 has informed the petitioner to get the boundaries fixed for the respective plots in order to ascertain whether respondent Nos.3 and 4 have encroached any part of the petitioner’s land and raised construction. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 has not displayed the required diligence in ensuring the presence of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and failed to show the seriousness, which is warranted for addressing the grievances of the petitioner. In my opinion, with the consideration of the petitioner’s representation and issuing proceedings, dated 27.08.2011, respondent No.1 has complied with the directions given by this Court, though belatedly. Ex facie, the grievance of the petitioner that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have encroached a part of her plot cannot be made subject matter of adjudication by respondent No.1. Such a grievance will give rise to a civil action by the petitioner against the said respondents. All respondent No.1 needs to examine and take action upon is whether respondent Nos.3 and 4 have raised construction by violating the set-backs. To this extent, this respondent is required to re-examine the issue and take appropriate action. If the petitioner is still having any grievance on the encroachment by respondent Nos.3 and 4, she shall be free to approach the competent civil Court for appropriate relief. In the premises as above, I do not find any merit in the contempt case and the same is accordingly dismissed subject to the above observations. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th August, 2011 VGB