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. 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 adjudication of the same, the sole petitioner died on 27.08.2011 and the Legal Heirs of the deceased petitioner have been brought on record as petitioner Nos.2 to 4 vide orders dated 17.02.2017 passed in Application Nos.1460/2015 and 1461/2015. During the pendency of this contempt case, the sole respondent in Contempt Case was relieved from his post. Thereafter, an Application vide No.266/2017 was filed to add the Successor Officer as respondent No.2 and the same was allowed. When this Contempt Case is taken up for final hearing, neither the respondent No.1 or respondent No.2 are proper parties to subject them for rigmarole of contempt trial. 6. Thereafter, an Application vide No.266/2017 was filed to add the Successor Officer as respondent No.2 and the same was allowed. When this Contempt Case is taken up for final hearing, neither the respondent No.1 or respondent No.2 are proper parties to subject them for rigmarole of contempt trial. 6. Sri Pottigari Sridhar Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of learned Advocate General placed reliance on the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and submitted that for implementation of the orders, passed in W.P.No.4615/2000, the respondent deputed the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Secunderabad, to inspect the subject land in question and submit a report. As per the report submitted by the RDO, there is no open land available for handing over to the petitioner as retainable area in terms of the sketch drawn by the petitioner. 7. The respondents having stated that they are not in a position to identify and localize the retainable area, ought to have complied with condition No.6 of the orders passed in W.P.No.4615/2000, wherein this Court specifically directed the respondents that if no such land is available, they shall invoke land acquisition proceedings and pay compensation to the petitioner for depriving him of the retainable land. 8. In this context, it is necessary to examine the object of Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976. The legislature to see that the urban resource/urban land to be distributed to various sections of the Society and to control the speculative transactions have enacted the ULC Act and it is made mandatory for filing of the declaration for the vacant lands within the urban agglomeration. While conducting an enquiry under the provisions of the ULC Act, a duty was cast upon the authorities to pay compensation for the vacant land acquired under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act. In the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, it is stated that after issuance of notification under Section 10(5) of the Act, the orders under Section 10(6) of the Act, were issued on 06.02.1997, authorizing the Enquiry Officer to take possession of the surplus land to an extent of 1826.76 sq. mtrs and accordingly, possession was taken on 31.03.1997 and handed over to Mandal Revenue Officer. mtrs and accordingly, possession was taken on 31.03.1997 and handed over to Mandal Revenue Officer. It appears from the record that there is a dispute between the declarant and his brother, who filed Writ Petition No.2339/1998 for retainable area and the State is not in a position to pass an award under section 11(8) of the Act. The record further reveals that there is a dispute relating to identification/localization of lands on ground as the location and the map prepared by the petitioner are not tallying. A careful examination of the contents of the contempt affidavit and the counter affidavit would reveal that there is serious dispute with regard to identification/localization of the land, as part of the lands are covered by weaker section houses and CC road. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments held that to punish the contemnors for violation of the orders, two essential conditions viz. “wilful and deliberate” action must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 10. In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union vs. Dharam Godha and others, (2003) 11 SCC 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the concept of ‘wilful disobedience’ of an order of the Court. It was stated that ‘wilful’ means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say, with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. According to the Court, it signifies the act done with evil intent or with a bad motive for the purpose. It was observed that the act or omission has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 11. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others, (1999) 7 SCC 569 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that for holding a person to have committed contempt, it must be shown that there was wilful disobedience of the judgment or order of the Court. It was further observed that issuance of notice for contempt of Court and power to punish are having far reaching consequences, and as such, they should be resorted to only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the court's order is made out. It was further observed that issuance of notice for contempt of Court and power to punish are having far reaching consequences, and as such, they should be resorted to only when a clear case of wilful disobedience of the court's order is made out. A petitioner who complains breach of Court's order must allege deliberate or contumacious disobedience of the Court's order and if suchallegation is proved, contempt can be said to have been made out, not otherwise. It was noted that power to punish for contempt is intended to maintain effective legal system. 12. In the instant case, the present Contempt Case arises out of the orders dated 13.08.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.4615/2000. Admittedly, the Contempt Case was filed on 23.08.2010. The Registry returned the Contempt Case with certain objections on the same day. The petitioner resubmitted the contempt case on 10.02.2011 along with condone delay application vide Application No.130/2011 and this Court allowed the said application on 11.02.2011. This Contempt Case was admitted on 07.03.2012. Even if the period of limitation is reckoned from the date on which the delay in representing the contempt case was condoned i.e., 11.02.2011, the contempt case was admitted only on 07.03.2012, which is clearly beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments while referring to the Section 17 read with Rule 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, has categorically held that mere issuance of notice/notice before admission within the period of one year does not stop running of the time of one year as prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Purushotham Das vs. B.S. Dilan, AIR 1978 SC 1014 held that no contempt proceedings can be initiated by a Court after the expiry of one year from the date of the alleged act of contempt, as prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Even if an application seeking initiation of contempt proceedings is filed within the prescribed period of one year, such application would be automatically barred by limitation if the Court fails to take cognizance or apply its judicial mind to the alleged act of contempt before the expiry of the said period. Even if an application seeking initiation of contempt proceedings is filed within the prescribed period of one year, such application would be automatically barred by limitation if the Court fails to take cognizance or apply its judicial mind to the alleged act of contempt before the expiry of the said period. For the said reasons this Court is not having any doubt in mind that the facts stated supra disentitle the petitioner to seek relief under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, more particularly, as the petitioner failed to establish wilful deliberate action or indifferent attitude on the part of the respondents. Further, the letter dated 10.10.1985 addressed by the petitioner to the Special Officer and Competent Authority, would show that the petitioner admitted that the land in question has been occupied unauthorisedly and illegally by hut mates since 1967 or 1968 and the occupants perfected their title by adverse possession (A copy of the said letter is filed as additional material papers in the present Contempt Case). 13. Be that as it may, this Court while exercising the powers under Section 23 of the Act, 1971 read with Articles 215 and 227 of the Constitution of India and by Section 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure, framed the Rules to Regulate Proceedings for Contempt of Subordinate Court and of the High Court under the Contempt of Courts’ Act, 1971. Rule 27 specifically states that the Court may pass such orders as the Justice of the case requires. Admittedly, this Court while disposing the writ petition observed that if the respondents are not in a position to re-deliver the retainable area of 1000 sq.yards, they shall invoke land acquisition proceedings for grant of compensation for the said extent of land. The orders of this Court in W.P.No.4615 of 2000 have attained finality. This Contempt Case is pending since more than 13 years from the date of admission. In the meantime, the officer who was arrayed as party respondent, relieved from his post. Even the officer who was impleaded vide I.A.No.2 of 2017 also relieved from his post. Keeping in mind, injustice done to the petitioner and as the respondents have not complied with the orders, this Court being conferred with the power under Rule 27 of Contempt of Court Rules, deems it appropriate to pass appropriate and justifiable orders to uphold the dignity of the Courts. Keeping in mind, injustice done to the petitioner and as the respondents have not complied with the orders, this Court being conferred with the power under Rule 27 of Contempt of Court Rules, deems it appropriate to pass appropriate and justifiable orders to uphold the dignity of the Courts. The power to punish for Contempt of Court’s order is vital to safeguard the authority and efficiency of the judicial system. This power is essential for upholding the rule of law and ensuring due compliance by addressing actions that undermine its authority, obstruct its proceedings, or diminish the public trust and confidence in the judicial system. 14. Keeping in mind the above principles and in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the District Collector, Hyderabad, to comply with condition No.6 of the order dated 13.08.2009 passed in W.P.No.4615/2000 i.e, 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, as per the applicable laws as on the date of passing orders, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 15. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.