SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CONTEMPT CASE No.252…
Null and Void
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH
CONTEMPT CASE No.252 of 2010
ORDER:
This contempt case has been filed alleging that the 3rd respondent intentionally and willfully disobeyed the order, dated 21-03-2006, passed by this court in W.P.No.5547 of 2006.
The said writ petition was filed by the petitioner for grant of patta in respect of Ac.0-45 cents in Sy.No.434/2 of Pernametta Village, S.N.Padu Mandal, Prakasam District. During the course of arguments, it was contended that the petitioner has made a representation before the 3rd respondent on 23-11-2005 requesting for grant of patta, but the said representation has not been disposed of. Accordingly, the said writ petition was disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider and dispose of the representation, dated 23-11-2005, if any pending, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
A counter has been filed by the 3rd respondent stating that pursuant to the aforesaid order of this court, a notice was issued to the petitioner and the matter was enquired on 09-11-2003 and he had issued an endorsement vide Rc.A/166/2006, dated 14-11-2006, to the petitioner stating that the land admeasuring Ac.0-72 cents in Sy.No.434/2 is classified as Rasta Poramboke in village accounts of Pernametta Village and included in the land bank for future needs of the Government and, therefore, the land is required for the Government to utilize for its welfare activities. Accordingly, it was informed that it is not possible to assign the said land in favour of the petitioner and the said endorsement was also acknowledged by the petitioner on 17-11-2006. Therefore, it cannot be said that the representation of the petitioner has not been disposed of. Thus, it is stated that the case of the petitioner was considered and the same was communicated to the petitioner. Hence, it cannot be said that there is a willful disobedience on the part of the 3rd respondent.
In view of the endorsement issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.A/166/2006, dated 14-11-2006, it cannot be said that the 3rd respondent intentionally and wilfully disobeyed the order of this court.
Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to question Rc.A/166/2006, dated 14-11-2006. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________ 18-06-2010
Prv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the 3rd Respondent willfully disobeyed the earlier order by not granting patta.
Whether the notice and endorsement issued by the 3rd Respondent amount to disobedience.
Whether the subsequent endorsement is challengeable in the present contempt proceeding.
Petitioner
3rd Respondent
V.ESWARAIAH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
