IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.16 of 2010 Between: N. Bhoomaiah & others. … Petitioners And The Secretary to Govt. of A.P., Dept., of Housing & Municipal Administration, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. G. Neeraja Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri R. Ramchandra Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.16 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 29.02.2008 in Writ Petition No.2070 of 2008. This Court disposed of the above writ petition with the following direction: “In view of this undisputed fact, I feel that interest of justice would be met if respondent No.2 is directed to consider the claims of the petitioners and pass an award on line similar to the one passed on 21.09.2007, after being satisfied that the lands of the petitioners are taken over for the purpose of road widening. Respondent No.2 shall complete this exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if any of the petitioners are given alternative sites in lieu of payment of compensation, no award need be passed in their favour for payment of compensation. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.” Alleging willful disobedience of the said order, the petitioners filed the present contempt case. This Court has passed interlocutory orders from time to time in the contempt case, which prompted the respondents to initiate and continue the land acquisition proceedings. However, during the course of hearing of the contempt case, the learned Standing counsel has stated that all the petitioners except petitioner No.2 have approached the respondent with a request to extend them the benefit of extra Floor Space Index (FSI) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.483, dated 24.08.1998 in lieu of payment of compensation. In view of this submission, the respondent was directed to file an affidavit raising necessary pleadings in this regard. Accordingly, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent, wherein the abovementioned fact has been incorporated. The respondent also filed copies of the letters addressed by the petitioners except petitioner No.2. In the affidavit, it is further averred that all the petitioners including petitioner No.2 has availed the benefit of extra FSI. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not denied any of the averments made in the affidavit and the submissions of the learned Standing counsel for the respondent. Inasmuch as all the petitioners except petitioner No.2 agreed to forego the compensation, they cannot press the contempt case. Even though petitioner No.2 has not approached the respondent with a similar request, he has not denied the plea raised in the additional affidavit of the respondent that he also availed the benefit of extra FSI. In this view of the matter, even petitioner No.2 cannot press the contempt case. For the abovementioned reasons, the contempt case is dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.09.2010. ES