L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE lands of the petitioners at Vakalapudi Village of Kakinada Rural mandal, East Godavari District, were acquitted by initiating proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act ) for the purpose of establishing pellotisation and Sponge Iron Plants by essar Gujarat Limited, Kakinada through the A. P. Industrial Infrastructure Corporation limited (for short apiic ). An award was passed on 15-4-1991. The Land Acquisition officer the 2nd respondent therein awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 63,000. 00 per acre to the petitioners. They did not seek reference under Section 18 of the act. ( 2 ) CERTAIN other lands were also acquired through the notification under which the lands of the petitioners were acquired. At the instance of the owners of some of the lands, the matter was referred to the Court of Principal Senior civil Judge, Kakinada, under Section 18 of the Act. The said Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 63,000. 00 to Rs. 97,650. 00 per acre, through its judgment and decree dated 30-9-1999. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS submitted applications seeking re-determination of the compensation awarded to them under Section 28-A of the Act, in the light of the order passed be the Civil Court in the reference under section 18 of the Act. Complaining that the respondents have not acceded to their request, petitioners filed W. P. No. 4229 of 2003. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court through its orders dated 11-3-2003 directing the Special Deputy collector- the 2nd respondent herein to redetermine the market value for the lands of the petitioners, and to pay the compensation, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents have not complied with the orders of this Court in W. P. No. 4229 of 2003. ( 4 ) THE contempt case came up for admission initially on 30-11-2003. This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents have not complied with the orders of this Court in W. P. No. 4229 of 2003. ( 4 ) THE contempt case came up for admission initially on 30-11-2003. At that time, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the 2nd respondent had passed an order dated 4-6-2003 stating that the Agency, for whose benefit the land was acquired, namely, the APIIC has been requested to place necessary funds at his disposal to enable him to pass orders re-determining the compensation under section 28-A of the Act, and since the funds were not made available, further action could not be taken. It was also pleaded that necessary orders under Section 28-A of the Act would be passed, as soon as the funds are made available. In that view of the matter, it was observed that unless the agency for whose benefit, the land was acquired, is before this Court, no relief, as such can be granted. It was in this context, that the petitioners filed W. P. No. 25323 of 2003 against the Government of Andhra Pradesh, APIIC and the special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), apiic, seeking a writ of mandamus against the Respondents 1 and 2 therein to provide necessary funds to the 3rd respondent, and in turn direct the 3rd respondent to pass orders re-determining the compensation under Section 28-A of the Act. The writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single judge of this Court. The order reads as under:"earlier to this writ petition, the W. P. No. 4229 of 2003 filed by the writ petitioners was partly allowed by an order dated 11-3-2003 with a direction to the Land Acquisition officer to re-determine the compensation under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition act, 1894, and to pay the compensation amount. It is well settled that the primary liability is on the Collector to pass the award or redetermine the award and pay the compensation. Once the said writ petition is allowed, the petitioners can proceed against the Collector for non re-determination of the compensation amount and payment of the same, for which the petitioners have already initiated contempt proceedings. It is well settled that the primary liability is on the Collector to pass the award or redetermine the award and pay the compensation. Once the said writ petition is allowed, the petitioners can proceed against the Collector for non re-determination of the compensation amount and payment of the same, for which the petitioners have already initiated contempt proceedings. Subsequent writ petition for directing the requisitioning authority to deposit amount enabling the Collector to comply with the order passed by the Court cannot be entertained, since it is for the Collector to comply with the order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs". ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners submits that it is the obligation of the 1st respondent in this Contempt Case to pay the compensation as may be re-determined by the 2nd respondent, and any lapse on their part would amount to committing contempt of orders of this Court in W. P. No. 4229 of 2003. He places reliance on a judgment of this Court reported in Bolla babu Prasad and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, 2002 (3) ald 40 , for the proposition that it is for the district Collector to pay the compensation, notwithstanding the fact that the land was acquired for the benefit of some other agency. ( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, on the other hand, submits that the 2nd respondent is virtually helpless, inasmuch as, necessary funds were not made available by the Agency, for whose benefit the land was acquired. He also submits that the petitioners have not chosen to implead the APIIC in the writ petition and, it is not possible to re-determine the compensation. ( 7 ) THE complaint of the petitioners is that the orders of this Court in W. P. No. 4229 of 2003 have not been complied with by the respondents. It is a matter of record that the 2nd respondent passed an award initially on 15-4-1991. It is not in dispute that the land was acquired for the benefit of apiic. Petitioners have applied for redetermination of the compensation, on the basis of the orders passed by the Civil court in a reference made under Section 18 of the Act. The funds for initial payment of the compensation were made available by the Agency for whose benefit, the land was acquired. Petitioners have applied for redetermination of the compensation, on the basis of the orders passed by the Civil court in a reference made under Section 18 of the Act. The funds for initial payment of the compensation were made available by the Agency for whose benefit, the land was acquired. It goes without saying that any enhanced amount of compensation, be it under an order passed under Section 18 of the Act by a Civil Court, or an order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 28-A of the Act, need to be paid by the same Agency. It is not a case where the land is acquired for the benefit of the government, as such. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons best known to them, the petitioners have not chosen to implead the APIIC in the Writ Petition no. 4229 of 2003. The Land Acquisition officer and Collector alone were impleaded. Unless necessary funds are made available for re-determination of the compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer is virtually helpless. Neither the Collector, nor the Land acquisition Officer, can be compelled to shell down the amounts for the lands which were acquired for the benefit of APIIC. It is true, that the petitioners had taken steps, to remedy the situation at a later point of time, by filing W. P. No. 25323 of 2003. However, were not successful. The writ petition was dismissed with an observation that it is for the Collector to comply with the order. If the petitioners feels aggrieved by the order in the said writ petition, they have to avail the remedy of writ appeal. They cannot canvass the correctness of that order in this Contempt case. ( 9 ) A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider this aspect of the matter in similar, if not, identical circumstances in Khatoon Bee v. B. Venkataiah, Special Deputy Collector, CC no. 1276 of 2003. In that case, the land was acquired for the benefit of Andhra pradesh State Electricity Board. W. P. No. 17134 of 1994 was filed seeking a direction to the respondents therein to initiate proceedings under the Land acquisition Act, 1894. The A. P. Electricity board and its authorities were impleaded as respondents 1 and 2. 1276 of 2003. In that case, the land was acquired for the benefit of Andhra pradesh State Electricity Board. W. P. No. 17134 of 1994 was filed seeking a direction to the respondents therein to initiate proceedings under the Land acquisition Act, 1894. The A. P. Electricity board and its authorities were impleaded as respondents 1 and 2. The writ petition was disposed of on 28-11-1994, directing that the proceedings under Land Acquisition act, 1894, be initiated and award to be passed within six months. A contempt case was filed alleging non-compliance of the same. The petitioner therein did not choose to implead the Electricity Board or the authorities thereof in the contempt case. The Division Bench took the view, in its order dated 5-12-2003, that unless the authority, for whose benefit the land is acquired, makes the necessary funds available, further action cannot be taken. In the case on hand, the petitioners have not chosen to implead the APIIC in the writ petition, muchless, in this contempt case. ( 10 ) A perusal of the judgment in bolla Babu Prasad s case (supra) discloses that though a passing observation was made, the ultimate direction was given to the agency, for whose benefit the land was acquired to make the necessary funds available to the Land Acquisition Officer and the later, in turn was directed to take further steps. ( 11 ) UNDER these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondents are guilty of deliberate and wilful contempt of the orders passed by this Court. ( 12 ) THE Contempt Case is accordingly closed, leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies in accordance with law.