THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CONTEMPT CASE No.2 OF 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed complaining willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in complying with the order dated 11.11.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.32230 of 2008 in W.P.No.24691 of 2008, whereunder the respondents were directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the land admeasuring Ac.2.34 gts. in Sy.No.1 of Bhuktapur Village, Adilabad District, pending further orders. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, in spite of the aforesaid orders of this Court, respondent No.5- Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Adilabad, issued notice dated 10.12.2009, indicating that the 1st respondent- District Collector, Adilabad, has requested to resume the subject land and, therefore, the petitioner was directed to submit the relevant documents in respect of the subject land, and pursuant thereto, the staff and agents of the respondents are interfering with its possession over the subject land. Respondents 2 and 5, Joint Collector of Adilabad District and Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, respectively, have filed detailed counter-affidavits, wherein it is stated that, as it has come to light that the petitioner company, in contravention of the conditions imposed at the time of allotment of land, has sold away an extent of Ac.1.33 gts. out of the land allotted to it, admeasuring Ac.4.27 gts, the notice dated 10.12.2009 was issued to it to come forward with all documentary evidence in support of its ownership over the land allotted to it, in order to find out the exact extent of land that is alienated by it and the extent of land in its possession. It is further stated that, in the said notice, inadvertently it was indicated that the 1st respondent has requested to resume the subject land, which is not true, and the 5th respondent was also warned for committing such mistake. It is also categorically stated that, except issuing the said notice, the respondents are not interfering with the petitioner’s possession over the subject land and that they never disobeyed the orders of this Court. In view of the aforesaid averments made in the counter-affidavits of respondents 2 and 5, no further orders need be passed in this contempt case and the same is liable to be closed. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. ______________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 9th April, 2010 IBL