IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THIS THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.392 OF 2010 Between: Md.Abeeda Begum W/o.Nayeem and others …. Petitioners AND The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda and others …. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.392 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The petitioners filed W.P. No.6053 of 2009 complaining that though they have been granted house site pattas, possession of the plots was not delivered to them. The writ petition was disposed of on 26-03-2009 directing the respondents to pass orders on the representation, dated 24-01-2009, submitted by the petitioners, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. 2. This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioners alleging that the respondents did not implement the direction issued by this Court in W.P. No.6053 of 2009. 3. A detailed counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the pattas were granted over the land in Survey No.950 on the assumption that the entire land is owned by the Government, and in the course of verification, it has emerged that some part of land in survey No.950, which was assigned to the beneficiaries, is owned by a private individual, who is the pattadar of the land in survey No.951. It is also stated that the persons in whose favour pattas were granted over the land, which falls in survey No.951, were provided alternative sites, duly verifying genuinity of their claims. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners and certain others were granted house site pattas in the year 2007 over the land in survey Nos.950 of Miryalaguda revenue village. However, it emerged that some part of land in survey No.950 is owned by a private individual. This, naturally, resulted in non-delivery of the possession of plots to the concerned beneficiaries. On realizing that the pattas have been granted to some beneficiaries over the land in survey No.951, the respondents have made alternative arrangements. 6. It is pointed out that as many as 17 house site pattas were issued in respect of the land in survey No.951. For petitioner Nos.2, 6, 7, 8 & 11, possession of sites is said to have been delivered in the land in survey No.950 on 30-04-2010, after conducting a panchanama. So far as other beneficiaries are concerned, it is stated that the possession could not be handed over, since the persons are not available at the furnished addresses. The proposals are said to be pending for allotment of house sites to other eligible petitioners. 7. In that view of the matter, it is directed that the respondents shall expedite the process of allotting pattas to such of the petitioners, who are otherwise eligible and genuine but were not handed over the possession. 8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J June 18, 2010. KTL