IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE Nos.204 and 209 of 2011 (Contempt Case U/s. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondent herein for violating, disobeying the Order of the High Court dated 22.06.2010 in WP.Nos.14142 and 14140 of 2011.) CC.No.204 of 2011: BETWEEN Jadi Bhoomaiah ... PETITIONER AND Sri K. Keshava Reddy, Tahsildar, Karimnagar District and two others. ...RESPONDENTS CC.No.209 of 2011: BETWEEN Jadi Bala Reddy. ... PETITIONER AND Sri K. Keshava Reddy, Tahsildar, Karimnagar District and two others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. S. SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: This Court, by separate orders dated 22.06.2010 in WP.Nos.14142 and 14140 of 2010, remanded the matters to the revisionary authority, the Joint Collector, Karimnagar District, for fresh consideration and to pass reasoned orders after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties. A time frame of three months was fixed for completing this exercise. 2. Alleging that no action was taken by the revisionary authority pursuant to the above orders, the writ petitioners in both the cases filed these contempt cases. 3. The Tahsildar, Karimnagar Mandal and District, filed a counter stating that upon remand, the Joint Collector, Karimnagar District, issued notices to the parties which were duly served. But, in spite of the same, the parties did not choose to put in their appearance on the various dates of hearing: 20.11.2010; 04.12.2010 and 18.12.2010. Owing to the continued absence of the parties, it is stated that the Joint Collector, Karimnagar District, passed reasoned orders on 11.03.2011, after examining the record, dismissing the revision petitions. 4. In the light of the aforestated facts it is clear that there is no willful disobedience to the orders passed by this Court. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the revisionary authority after remand, they would necessarily have to seek redressal by way of independent proceedings and cannot make the same the subject matter of enquiry in these contempt cases. The contempt cases are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J April 20, 2011 DSK