THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No.1498 of 2010 DT.26.11.2010 Between: P.Govind Reddy and others … Petitioners And Mr.Rajesh Tiwari, Commissioner of Hyderabad Metro Development Authority, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri Addapalli Suryanarayana Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3: Sri N.Subba Reddy Counsel for respondent No.4 : AGP for Revenue The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 27.09.2010, in W.P.M.P.No.30595 of 2010, in W.P.No.23913 of 2010. I have heard Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Addapalli Suryanarayana, learned counsel representing respondent No.1, Sri N.Subba Reddy, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.2 and 3, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent No.4. The petitioners have averred in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case that they have filed W.P.No.23913 of 2010, that in W.P.M.P.No.30595 of 2010 filed in the said writ petition, this Court passed an order on 27.09.2010, directing the respondents not to interfere with their property admeasuring Acs.26.16 guntas comprised in Survey No.4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 41/9 to 12 of Khanamet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is further averred that the said order was served on the respondents on 28.09.2010 and when the Manager of M/s.Suresh Productions has approached respondent No.2 for service of papers, he is said to have heckled him saying that the Courts have no business to pass meaningless orders and that the petitioners can do whatever they would like to do. It is further averred that despite the interim orders passed by this Court, the respondents are proceeding to occupy the land. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that while the interim order was granted in respect of land in Survey Nos.4, 5, 8, 9, 10 and 41/9 to 12, the respondents are concerned with the lands situated in Survey No.41/14 and that out of Acs.105.13 guntas allotted by the Government to Hyderabad Metro Development Authority for development purpose, an extent of Acs.2.00 was alienated to M/s.Maruthi Suzuki Limited on payment of total value of the land and possession was also delivered on 18.09.2010. He has, therefore, denied committing any contempt. As specific allegations were made against respondent No.2, he has filed a separate counter affidavit, wherein he has denied the representative of the petitioners meeting him and his alleged comments against the order of this Court. He has tendered unconditional apology in this regard. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4, it is inter alia stated that as there is serious dispute regarding identity of the land, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District was directed vide proceedings of respondent No.4 in Office Memo No.E1/8606/2003, dated 06.11.2010, to verify, inspect and report on this issue and that since huge extent of Government land is involved, a detailed survey is time consuming and that a month’s time may be granted for completion of survey. From the various stands taken by the respective parties, I am of the opinion that on account of the dispute pertaining to the identity of the land, the differences among the parties have arisen. As respondent No.4 has come forward for getting the land surveyed which may put an end to the entire controversy, respondent No.4 is directed to get the survey conducted and communicate the result of the survey to the petitioners, within a period of one month from today. Subject to the above direction, the contempt case is closed. As a sequel to disposal of the contempt case, Application Nos.978 and 1159 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) Date: 26.11.2010. VGBs