Dismissed
Badam Chennamma v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh
Telangana HCCC/748/2009
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CONTEMPT CASE…
What the court decided
AI extract
SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CONTEMPT CASE…
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 B.PRAKASH RAO
CONTEMPT CASE NO.748 OF 2009
ORDER:
In this Contempt Case, the petitioner’s grievance is against the action on the part of the respondents herein in trying to interfere with his possession contrary to the interim order dated 12.05.2009 passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.13135 of 2009 in W.P.No.10178 of 2009. In the said order, this Court granted interim direction, as prayed for, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the land to an extent of Acs.3.20 gts in Survey No.262 of Sarapaka Village, Buragampahad Mandal, Khammam District, pending disposal of W.P.No.10178 of 2009.
The main allegation made in the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner in support of the Contempt case is that on 13.06.2009, when he was starting the agricultural operations in the above-mentioned land, the respondents and their henchman threatened him not to start any agricultural operations.
In the counter affidavit sworn to by Sri B.V.Ramana Babu-second respondent and the Divisional Forest Officer, it is stated that the said allegation against the respondents is not correct and the respondents never tried to dispossess the petitioner from the said land nor they are to harass the petitioner. Further, it is also asserted in page-2 of the counter affidavit that the respondents never obstructed the agricultural operations of the petitioner, as the petitioner is not a Forest encroacher.
In view of the specific mention denying the very factum of interference by the respondents, no contempt arises.
Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed.
(B.PRAKASH RAO, J)
1st April 2010 RRB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether contempt arises when respondents admit in counter affidavit that they never interfered with the petitioner's possession.
Whether the petitioner's allegation of threat sufficed for a finding of contempt given the denial of interference.
Petitioner
Sri B.V.Ramana Babu
Divisional Forest Officer
B.PRAKASH RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court