The court emphasized that proving contempt requires establishing wilful disobedience of court orders, asserting jurisdiction under the Urban Land Ceiling Act mandates compliance for compensation.

ORDER :

1. This Contempt Case is filed alleging non-compliance of the order, dated 13.08.2009 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 4615 of 2000.

2. The petitioner herein filed W.P.No.4615 of 2000 seeking a writ of mandamus to approve retainable area of 1000 sq.yards as requested by him on 14.09.1999 and to pay compensation for the excess land of 1826.76 sq.mtrs. It is stated that the petitioner is absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring 2826.76 sq. mtrs in Sy. No.387 situated at Shaikpet Village and after the enactment of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “ULC Act”), he filed declaration in C.C. No.E2/1869/76. After due enquiry, the orders under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act were passed and final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act, was issued declaring that the petitioner is entitled to hold 1000 sq. mtrs as retainable area under Section 4(1)(b) of the ULC Act. Thereafter, the possession of surplus land was taken over by following due process of law on 06.02.1997. This Court, after considering the counter affidavit and the material on record, while observing that the retainable area of the petitioner was assigned in favour of third parties and thereby the petitioner’s right to enjoy the retainable area was deprived under Section 4(1) (b) of the Act, disposed of writ petition vide order dated 13.08.2009, with the following directions:

“..Under those circumstances, the District Collector, Hyderabad District is directed to depute an Officer, not below the rank of Revenue Divisional Officer, to conduct spot inspection of the subject land within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order;

1) To identify the surplus land and the retainable land of the petitioner and draw a sketch/map.

2) What was the area of the surplus land allotted to others.

3) Whether any land is still vacant as on date.

4) If there is any vacant land is available, the same shall be allowed to be occupied by the petitioner as retainable area.

5) If no open land is available, the Revenue Divisional Officer shall identify the retainable area and the District Collector shall hand over the same to the petitioner by vacating the illegal occupants, if any.

6) If no such land is available, the respondents shall invoke land acquisition proceedings for grant of compensation under the Act, as the petitioner was deprived of his retainable land of 1000 sq. mtrs. illegally.

The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.”

3. Alleging that the respondent has willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court in identifying the surplus land or for payment of compensation by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, this Contempt Case is filed on 11.02.2011.

4. After receipt of the notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent-District Collector, Hyderabad, on 26.03.2012. It is the specific case of the respondent that the Contempt Case was filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act and the petitioner having stated in the affidavit accompanying the contempt case that he has personally met the respondent on 05.02.2009 and made a request for implementation of the order, filed the contempt case on 10.02.2011, which is much beyond the period of limitation. The respondent while denying the contents of the affidavit filed in support of contempt case, prayed for dismissal of the contempt case on the sole ground of limitation.

5. This Contempt Case was admitted on 07.03.2012 and pending