ORDER : The present Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.9629 of 2013 dated 03.03.2021. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner has filed W.P.No.9629 of 2013 challenging the impugned order dated 02.02.2013 issued by the respondents refusing to sanction building permission to the petitioner in respect of plot No.29 in Sy.No.140, situated at Mahdavi Nagar, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as the said plot of the petitioner was falling under buffer zone of Yellamma Cheruvu, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, Hyderabad. 3. Initially, this Court after hearing both sides has allowed the said Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned order dated 02.02.2013 by remanding to the competent authority to consider the same after duly taking into consideration of the letter dated 14.05.2009 addressed by the Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and also taking into consideration of the petitioner’s case with similarly situated plot owners who have been granted building permission. The order passed by this Court in W.P.No.9629 of 2013 is extracted as under: “Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned letter dated 02.02.2013, and the matter is remanded to the competent authority to re-consider the same afresh duly taking into consideration the letter dated 14.05.2009, addressed by the Tahsildar, Balangar Mandal, to the Collector, Ranga Reddy District, and also taking into consideration the fact that similarly situated plot owners have been granted building permission, and pass necessary orders. In case, the competent authority needs any clarification, he can seek the same from the Tahsildar concerned. This entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that before passing any orders, the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing. A copy of the order that may be passed by the competent authority shall be communicated to the petitioner.” 4. It is made clear that before passing any orders, the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing. A copy of the order that may be passed by the competent authority shall be communicated to the petitioner.” 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the order of this Court, the writ petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 28.04.2021 and the respondent authorities issued order in Lr.No.449/TPS1/ ACP/C24/GHMC/2021 dated 07.05.2021 rejecting to grant building permission over the respective plot bearing No.29 of the petitioner once again reiterating that the said plot was coming under buffer zone of Yellamma Cheruvu, Balanagar, Hyderabad. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the writ petitioner once again made representation on 17.05.2021, to which the authorities replied vide letter No.449/TPS1/ACP/C24/ GHMC/2021 dated 22.05.2021. Further, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that though this Court directed the respondent authorities to consider grant of building permission to the writ petitioner duly taking into consideration of the letter of Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal, dated 14.05.2009, the respondent authorities so as to deprive the legitimate right of the writ petitioner have been adopting several vindictive methods and have intentionally rejected his claim on false and untenable grounds. 5. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel that in other writ petitions filed by the similarly situated persons, the respondent authorities have filed a rough sketch map showing the survey number where the plot of the writ petitioner was situated being out of buffer zone and that the said rough sketch of Yellamma Cheruvu has been filed before this Court and in such rough sketch, the plot of the writ petitioner was falling outside the purview of buffer zone. It is further contended that on previous occasion, when the writ petitioner has filed an application for sanction of building permission, the writ petitioner was granted building permission in the year 2009 vide proceedings No.G1/96/BA/336/09-010 dated 06.07.2009 and on previous occasion, the authorities sanctioned the building permission in pursuance of the layout which was finally released by the Director of Town and Country Planning vide Lr.No.U3/80, dated 14.07.1980 and as the building was not constructed within the stipulated time as per the plan sanctioned by the authorities dated 06.07.2009 as the same lapsed, subsequently he made an application and it is being rejected without proper justifiable reasons intentionally with untenable grounds. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has placed reliance on the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of E.T.Sunup v. C.A.N.S.S.Employees Association and another , (2004) 8 SCC 683 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “it has become a tendency with the Government officers to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of Court and try to take recourse to one justification or other. This shows complete lack of grace in accepting the orders of the Court and this tendency of undermining the Court’s order cannot be countenanced. This Court time and again has emphasized that in a democracy the role of the Court cannot be subservient to administrative fiat. The executive and legislature have to work within the constitutional framework and the judiciary has been given the role of watchdog to keep the legislature and executive within check”. In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that as there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the bureaucracy to circumvent the order of the Court stick to their stand held that there was clear violation of the Court’s order and the Hon’ble Apex Court held the appellant as guilty of flouting the orders. 7. In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that as there was a deliberate attempt on the part of the bureaucracy to circumvent the order of the Court stick to their stand held that there was clear violation of the Court’s order and the Hon’ble Apex Court held the appellant as guilty of flouting the orders. 7. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance in the case of Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India and others , 2012 AIR SCW 734 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in the facts of the said case, it is undisputed that for years together the State of Haryana has failed to comply with the directions of this Court and implement the scheme which has not only caused prejudice to the public at large but has even undermined the dignity of this Court and in such circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the authorities are guilty and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment. 8. Learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in the case of R.K.Enclave Plot Owners Association v. State of Telangana , 2020 (1) ALD 449 (TS) wherein this Hon’ble Court held that in the facts of the case therein, the respondents suppressed the material and deliberately increased the FTL spread exorbitantly to 465 acres without any basis, with the result that area which was earlier not part of the water spread area of the tank, like the properties of the petitioners, came within the FTL to the serious disadvantage of the petitioners and other land owners in the said survey numbers and in the opinion of this Court, the FTL of a tank cannot be changed arbitrarily from time to time depending upon the whims and fancies of the respondents. As such, this Hon’ble Court in the said case held that the acts of the respondents therein are contemptuous in nature and the writ petition was allowed by imposing costs of Rs.25,000/-. However, this Court did not punish the respondents for contempt of Court as vacate stay petitions were pending adjudication for long time and closed the contempt case. 9. As such, this Hon’ble Court in the said case held that the acts of the respondents therein are contemptuous in nature and the writ petition was allowed by imposing costs of Rs.25,000/-. However, this Court did not punish the respondents for contempt of Court as vacate stay petitions were pending adjudication for long time and closed the contempt case. 9. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the present case also falls within the ambit of directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the authorities in the instant cases have been changing the measurements of the FTL and buffer zones of Yellamma Cheruvu, Balanagar, Hyderabad and thereby increasing the buffer zone area without any justifiable grounds and contended that the action of the authorities are nothing but contemptuous in nature and as such, the respondents are punishable for contempt of Court for deliberately disobeying the orders passed by this Court in the instant writ petition. 10. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Revenue as well as Irrigation and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the GHMC would submit that in fact, the respondents have not violated the orders passed by this Court and that earlier occasion this Court directed the authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of building permission afresh with reference to the letter of the Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal, dated 14.05.2001, in lieu of the same, the respondent authorities have considered the case of the petitioner and rejected as the plot of the petitioner was falling in the buffer zone of Yellamma Cheruvu, Balanagar, Hyderabad. As such, the respondent authorities issued Lr.No.449/TPS1/ACP/C24/GHMC/2021, dated 07.05.2021 informing that the building permission to the writ petitioner cannot be considered and though the writ petitioner submitted reply to the said letter, the same could not be re-considered as the plot of the petitioner was falling in the buffer zone. 11. As such, the respondent authorities issued Lr.No.449/TPS1/ACP/C24/GHMC/2021, dated 07.05.2021 informing that the building permission to the writ petitioner cannot be considered and though the writ petitioner submitted reply to the said letter, the same could not be re-considered as the plot of the petitioner was falling in the buffer zone. 11. It is further submitted that in fact incompliance of the orders passed by this Court dated 03.03.2021 in the W.P.No.9629 of 2013, the Corporation fixed the date of hearing on 04.05.2021 and intimation was given on 30.04.2021 to the petitioner, however request was made for hearing by the writ petitioner on 03.05.2021 and that the writ petitioner has stated that previously he has got building permission of the same plot and also surrounding plot owners of the same layout have got the permission and sought the building permission and the respondent-Corporation inspected the subject site and submitted report stating that the plot Sl.Nos.1 to 53, 127 to 137 of layouts which are on the North side of HT line road and are earmarked as water body in the master plan and thus, the said plot No.29 is falling in the water body of Yellamma Cheruvu as per the master plan approved by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.288, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, dated 03.04.2008 and after considering all the aspects, the Corporation issued rejection letter dated 07.05.2021 and contended that there is no willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. 12. 12. The writ petitioner has filed instant contempt case alleging that there is a clear violation of the orders passed by this Court dated 03.03.2021 in W.P.No.9629 of 2013 and contended that the respondents are intentionally changing the measurements of the buffer zone and FTL, so as to deprive the writ petitioner of his legitimate right for sanction of building plan and after filing of the counter, this Court in the underlying contempt case, in fact, by orders dated 20.07.2022 by recording submissions of the writ petitioner along with the submissions of learned Standing Counsel, opined that since there is no dispute with regard to the propositions laid down by this Court in E.T.Sunup’s case (supra) and Vajja Rajababu v. G.Kista Gound and others , 2019 (4) ALD 554 , as the scope of enquiry under the Contempt of Court Act is very limited, this Court under the Act can only punish the respondents/authorities if there is any deliberate or willful disobedience of the orders and having regard to the fact that as there is serious dispute with regard to the identity and location of the plot No.29 claimed by the petitioner, prima facie, this Court felt that ends of justice would be met if a survey is conducted by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Medak District for demarcating the plot No.29 on ground and to submit a report as to whether the same is falling within the buffer zone of the Yellamma Cheruvu, in the presence of the writ petitioner, along with the officials of the GHMC, the Revenue Department and the Irrigation Department duly by putting all the parties on notice directed to conduct survey and demarcate the said plot taking into consideration of the earlier report of the Tahsildar, dated 14.05.2009 along with the report dated 03.03.2014 of the Executive Engineer, North Tanks Division, Buddha Bhavan, Secunderabad and also the proceedings dated 17.05.2010 of the Deputy Collector & Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal and further to receive any work memos that may file by the parties, to be considered by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Medak District and to conduct the survey within four weeks from the date of said order. 13. 13. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue that in pursuance of this Hon’ble Court direction dated 20.07.2022, in the contempt case, the survey was conducted by the Inspector of Survey, Survey and Land Records, Medak District, and all the parties who were affected along with the petitioner have been duly intimated and the authorities demarcated boundaries of Sy.No.140 of Yellamma Cheruvu at Kukatpally and identified the location of the plot No.29. Further, it is stated that in the said survey, it was found that part of the plot No.29 of the petitioner falls under FTL and part falls under buffer zone and location sketch is prepared showing the boundaries of plot No.29 in Sy.No.140 by superimposing in FTL map of Yellamma Cheruvu and the particulars of the said survey along with the demarcation of land of Yellamma Cheruvu and the location sketch of Sy.No.140 is filed before this Court by due intimation to all parties by the Inspector of Survey vide Rc.No.A1/1068/2022, dated 09.01.2023. 14. It is contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that in pursuance of the interim direction in the instant contempt case, the survey was conducted and it has been observed that the land in respect of plot No.29, part of land of 164 square yards is falling under FTL and an extent of 102.67 square yards is falling under the buffer zone, as such, there is no willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. 15. I have heard learned Senior Counsel Sri Ravi Kondaveeti, representing Ms. Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri K.Ravi Mahendar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 7; Ms. T.Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.3, and Sri Laxmalla Sandeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and CAD appearing for Respondent No.4 and having given earnest consideration to their submissions, perused the record. 16. Kirthi Teja Kondaveeti, counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri K.Ravi Mahendar, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 7; Ms. T.Swetcha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent No.3, and Sri Laxmalla Sandeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and CAD appearing for Respondent No.4 and having given earnest consideration to their submissions, perused the record. 16. As seen from the record, this Court in the instant contempt case so as to come to a just conclusion and also in the interest of justice has directed the respondent authorities to conduct a detailed enquiry vide interim order dated 20.07.2022 by taking upon all the relevant factors and documents and also to consider various reports of the authorities by putting all the parties on notice and to demarcate the plot No.29 on ground and submit a report by conducting the survey by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Medak District. In pursuance of the same, the respondent authorities have conducted a detailed survey by putting all the parties on notice and rough sketch of the Sy.No.140 of Yellamma Cheruvu Tank, and demarcated the same and unfortunately, the plot of the writ petitioner was coming part in FTL zone and part in buffer zone. Further, it is not the case of the contempt petitioner that they were not put on notice and that the procedure was deviated, at the most, the only contention raised by the writ petitioner in the contempt case is that only to deny the legitimate right of the writ petitioner, the authorities have been adopting unfair methods. 17. As seen from the record of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Medak District, the survey was conducted in pursuance of the interim orders dated 20.07.2022 in the underlying contempt case and the plot of the writ petitioner was demarcated which fell under the FTL and the buffer zones as seen from the sketch map of the demarcation of the plot No.29 and Sy.No.140 of Yellamma Cheruvu Tank. In view of the same, this Court do not find any force in the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel that the respondents, so as to deprive the legitimate right of the contempt petitioner, have been rejecting the case of the writ petitioner and willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court and accordingly they are rejected. 18. In view of the same, this Court do not find any force in the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel that the respondents, so as to deprive the legitimate right of the contempt petitioner, have been rejecting the case of the writ petitioner and willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court and accordingly they are rejected. 18. Insofar as the facts in the decisions in R.K.Enclave Plot Owners Association (supra), E.T.Sunup (supra), and Maninderjit Singh Bitta (supra), are distinguishable with the facts of the case and the said cases are not applicable to the instant contempt case. 19. In the light of the above findings, in considered opinion of this Court, there is no disobedience or much less willful disobedience of the order dated 03.03.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.9629 of 2013. The Contempt Case is hereby closed accordingly. 20. However, the writ petitioner is at liberty to challenge the demarcation and survey conducted by the Assistant Director (Inspector), Survey and Land Records, Medak District, pertaining to Sy.No.140 and FTL of Yellamma Cheruvu, Kukatpally, dated 09.01.2023, before the appropriate authorities, if he desires so. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.