THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.C. No. 225 of 2009 Oral order: Alleging that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the orders dated 04.11.2008 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 23993 of 2008 and, as such, are liable for contempt, the petitioners filed this contempt case praying the Court to punish the respondents. On 04.11.2008, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents and the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents agreed for disposal of the writ petition, and as agreed to by them, the writ petition was disposed of with the following directions: Respondent No.1,namely the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, is directed to consider and dispose of either the stay application or the main appeal itself and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously. Till such time, the order that is subject matter of appeal before respondent No.1, shall be stayed. Now the petitioners complain that even though this Court stayed the order of the Tahsildar, which is subject matter of appeal before the Joint Collector, yet in gross violation of the orders of this Court, the unofficial respondents are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question by the petitioners by preventing access to the petitioners by constructing a compound wall, and therefore, the respondents are liable for contempt and should be punished. The respondents having received notice of this contempt case, filed counters stating that they never interfered with the possession of the petitioners, and that the land is still lying open, and to evidence that they produced photographs of the land. They further submitted that they have not violated the orders of this Court. The counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents further submitted that pursuant to the orders of this Court, the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, heard the appeal on 05.12.2008 and 11.12.2008 and reserved the appeal for orders, and he may pass orders at any moment. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in the counters that they have not interfered with the possession of the petitioners of the property in question no orders need be passed in the contempt case and the same is accordingly closed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J Dated: 19th January, 2010 KSR