THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Contempt Case No.905 of 2011 Dated 20th August, 2011 Between: Vijaya Bhaskara Cooperative Collective Farming …Petitioner And Sri S.A.M.Rizvi, IAS …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Smt.Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi Counsel for respondent: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER: This contempt case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of order, dated 10.03.2011, in W.P.No.19596 of 2010. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition filed by the petitioner herein gave the following directions: (1) “The petitioner-Society is permitted to furnish relevant information regarding the persons in occupation and the extents of the land held by each of them to the officials concerned of the Revenue Department; (2) Within one month from the date of receipt of such details, the District Collector shall ensure that the details are verified with reference to the record and relevant information is furnished to respondent No.4 for payment of compensation to individual members of the petitioner-Society in respect of the damage of crop suffered by them; and (3) Within one month from the date of receipt of the details from the District Collector, respondent No.4 shall release the input subsidy in favour of the members of the petitioner-Society, who have suffered crop damage.” The petitioner alleged that purporting to comply with the said direction, the respondent refused to release the input subsidy on the basis of report of the Tahsildar, Avanigadda to the effect that none of the members of the petitioner-Society are in possession of the land in question and that therefore, they are not entitled to the sanction of input subsidy. Smt.Bobba Vijaya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner, while stating that no finding has been rendered by this Court in this writ petition as to the possession of the members of the petitioner-Society, however, submitted that the decision taken by the respondent on the finding that the members of the petitioner-Society are not in possession of the lands in question would unsettle the rights of the members of the petitioner-Society. In my opinion, in the absence of any finding recorded by this Court in the order, dated 10.03.2011, in W.P.No.19596 of 2010, the conclusion of the respondent on the possession of the land in question cannot be said to be contrary to the order of this Court. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the decision of the respondent rejecting the input subsidy to the members of the petitioner-Society, it shall be free to avail appropriate remedy to question the same. Subject to the above observations, the contempt case is dismissed. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th August, 2011 VGB