IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No. 199 of 2010 Between: K.Bhavani Singh and another … Petitioners And Rajeswar Tivari, the State of A.P. Represented by its Secretary, Revenue department And five others. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.199 of 2010 ORDER:- This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order passed by this Court on 15.10.2003 in WP.MP.No.27016 of 2003 in W.P.No.21638 of 2003, whereby this Court passed the following order. “The Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, Vijayanagar colony, Hyderabad is hereby directed to see that no fresh encroachments should be made over the land, which is the subject matter of notification U/s.3(2) of A.P.Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act,1956. if any such encroachments are found, he should take necessary steps to remove the same apart from the encroachments which were identified on the date of issuance of notification.” Further it is not disputed that the writ petition itself was disposed of on 16.11.2006 observing that, in view of the interim orders passed, nothing survives in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Petitioners now complains that when the said order has not been complied with by the respondents, they got issued a legal notice dated 23.06.2003 to the respondents for implementation of the order and even after receipt of the said notice, the respondents have not initiated any action pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition. Hence, the present contempt case is filed to punish them under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Learned Government Pleader took notice on behalf of respondents and filed a counter stating that the present contempt case is filed beyond one year and the same cannot be entertained. Further, it is stated that in obedience to the order passed by this Court on 15.10.2003 in the above WP.MP., respondent No.6, Mandal Revenue Officer. Golconda Mandal has complied the directions in stopping fresh encroachments and as on today, there are no fresh encroachments from the date of final notification issued under Section 3(2) of the A.P.Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 published in the Gazette on 18.11.1998. The same is accordingly recorded. In view of the categorical assertion that the respondents complied the directions and not allowed any fresh encroachments in the suit schedule property, it is always open for the petitioners to avail the remedies available to them, as per law. Contempt case is accordingly closed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 01st April 2010 lmv