G. Krishna Reddy, v. Sri.N.Sridhar, I.A.S.,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1173 of 2014 Dated : 10.04.2015 Between:

G. Krishna Reddy S/o. Late G. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 60 yrs, Occu Agriculture, R/o.H.No.9-78/2, Burtonguda, Near Bollaram Railway Station, Secunderabad-10 .. Petitioner And Sri N. Sridhar, I.A.S. S/o.Not known District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

At Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

(Respondents 1 and 3 in the writ petition are not necessary parties in this contempt case) .. Respondent This Court made the following :

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.1173 of 2014 ORDER :

The grievance of the petitioner was that his land is falling within 100 Mtrs., of Air Force Station at Hakimpet and therefore, comes within the restricted zone. Neither the petitioner is allowed to undertake development of the said property nor compensation is paid to him.

2. On 27.12.2013, this Court in W.P.M.P.No.47597 of 2013 in W.P.No.38285 of 2013, passed interim order, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.10.2013 and pass appropriate orders as warranted by law.

3. In pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the Tahsildar conducted joint inspection with the officials of Air Force Station at Hakimpet and field staff, Malkajgiri, in several extents of land in Turkapalli and the report suggests that the property of the petitioner along with others is falling within the 100 Mtrs., distance. The said report is examined by the Collector and having noticed that since the land is falling within the 100 Mtrs., of Air Force Station, the lands cannot be de-notified and for further course of action he has arranged a meeting on 06.12.2014 with the Air Force authorities and the affected persons through Joint Collector. Since the issue involves financial implications, the District Collector is awaiting for the response of the Air Force authorities and the matter rests at that stage.

4. However, having regard to the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner was informed by the memo dated 29.03.2015 that the issue is under correspondence for resolution of the dispute and that at this stage, the District Collector cannot take a decision either to de-notify the subject lands or to pay compensation.

5. Having regard to the same, it cannot be said that the respondent-authority has violated the orders of this Court deliberately

and willfully warranting action under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Contempt Case shall stand closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 10th April, 2015 Rds