IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1648 OF 2009 Between: Minorities Development Housing Welfare Society, represented by its President Mr.Abdul Wahab … Petitioner And B.Ramanjaneyulu and three others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1648 of 2009 ORDER:- The petitioner is a welfare society. It approached this Court by filing W.P.No.7217 of 2009 stating that its members were allotted house sites in Survey Nos.1198 and 1201 of 2009 of Guntur Revenue Village between the years 2001 and 2004, but the possession was not delivered. The writ petition was disposed of on 07.04.2009 directing the 1st respondent to examine the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within one month from the date of conclusion of the elections that were going on at that time. This contempt case is filed alleging that the 1st respondent did not take any action so far. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. A perusal of the record discloses that the land in S.No.1198 and 1201 of 2009 was found to have been encroached by various persons and thereupon assignments were made in another site. i.e., S.No.540 of Pothur village on 02.10.2008, but the petitioner did not occupy the same. Third parties are said to have encroached that land also. W.A.No.707 of 2009 is pending before this Court in relation to the same. The 1st respondent has stated that as of now, no vacant land is available in Guntur town and that instructions have been issued to extend the benefit under the urban housing scheme to the eligible members of the society. A copy of the letter dated 12.06.2009 issued in this regard is filed. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a deliberate contempt of the orders of this Court on the part of the respondents. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 10th March 2010 lmv