THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.649 of 2011 ORDER: W.P.No.10368 of 2006 filed by the petitioners was admitted by this Court on 25.05.2006 and an interim direction was issued to the effect that the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioners from the land in Survey Nos.1684 to 1686 of Nizamabad. The writ petition was dismissed for default on 26.08.2010. The petitioners filed W.P.M.P.No.41665 of 2010 for restoration of the writ petition. The same was ordered on 22.12.2010. This contempt case is filed alleging that though the writ petition as well as the interim order passed in it were restored, through orders, dated 22.12.2010, the respondents have dispossessed them from a piece of land in Survey Nos.1684 to 1686 and that the same amounts to contempt of Court. Reference is made to legal notice got issued by the petitioners on 24.03.2011. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the applications filed by various individuals for allotment of the land on payment of market value were pending and soon after the dismissal of the writ petition, steps were initiated for handing over the possession. It is stated that the possession was handed over through panchanama, dated 02.12.2010, and the same was reported to the District Collector on 06.12.2010. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The respondents did not interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the land as long as the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.13021 of 2006 was in force. It was after the dismissal of the writ petition for default on 26.08.2010 that the respondents initiated steps. It is, no doubt, true that the writ petition was restored vide orders, dated 22.12.2010 and thereby, the interim order was also restored. However, according to the respondents, the possession of the land was taken through panchanama, dated 02.12.2010 and the same was reported to the District Collector on 06.12.2010. In this scenario, it cannot be said that the respondents have committed contempt of Court. If the petitioners are so advised, they shall have to seek further remedies by filing miscellaneous petitions in the same writ petition or by filing a fresh writ petition. The contempt case is accordingly closed. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:26.07.2011 kdl