HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CONTEMPT CASE No.795 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.No.6833 of 2008 for the following relief: “To issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in initiating the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for payment of compensation in respect of the land in Sy.No.2081 to an extent of 792 sq. yards situated at Shivanagar, Fort Road, Warangal District, which was acquired for formation of 33 feet road as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and pay compensation for the value of the aforesaid land as per law forthwith.” In the aforesaid writ petition, WPMP.No.8932 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) for payment of compensation in respect of the land in Sy.No.2081 of an extent of 792 sq. yards situated at Shivanagar, Fort Road, Warangal District. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 15.04.2008, granted interim direction to initiate land acquisition proceedings. Now, the present contempt case is filed by the petitioner stating that the said order has not been complied with. A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the first respondent-Warangal Municipal Corporation stating that, to ascertain the fact as to whether the petitioner was having title over the land or not, it had issued notice to the petitioner directing it to establish their title in respect of the land in Sy.No.2081 of an extent of 792 sq. yards and that the petitioner without furnishing any details has straight away approached this Court and filed the present contempt case. Heard. Apparently, the present contempt case is misconceived. By order dated 15.04.2008, this Court passed interim order directing the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings. However, it does not mean that without verifying the title deeds etc. the authorities have to issue notification as provided under Section 4(1) of the Act. In my considered view, the first respondent-Corporation has issued notice to the petitioner for production of title deeds etc. and, instead of moving this Court by way of filing the present contempt case, it should have approached the first respondent-Corporation and produced the relevant documents to establish their title. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J Dt:09-08-2010 usd