In this case, it is to be noticed that at first instance, the entire extent of Ac.5.26 cents of land belonging to the petitioners was notified by issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, but thereafter, the resumption order, dated 29.04.2010, is cancelled, on receiving further report from the Revenue Department that out of the total extent of Ac.5.26 cents of petitioners’ land, only an extent of Ac.0.21 cents is required for public purpose. In this contempt case, it is contended by Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel for petitioners that the entire land of petitioners was taken possession by the Government, as evident from the letter of the Tahsildar, dated 06.05.2010. But, in the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Collector, it is categorically stated that the same is incorrect statement and only an extent of Ac.0.21 cents is taken from the petitioners. It is evident from the counter affidavits filed by the respondent and other material placed on record that the land acquired from the petitioners is only Ac.0.21 cents, but not Ac.5.26 cents, as alleged by them. As much as only Ac.0.21 cents of petitioners’ land is acquired and an exgratia amount of Rs.52,500/- is already paid to the petitioner by way of Demand Draft, dated 07.10.2011, it cannot be said that the respondent has violated the directions of this Court by not paying compensation as directed by this Court. It is to be noticed that this Court directed that if the
