Dismissed

Nadendla Koteswara Rao v. Sri a.Vandanam

Telangana HC9 Mar 2012CC/1602/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these contempt proceedings, the petitioner alleged that respondents were encouraging encroachment on land protected by a prior Court order. The respondents contested the allegation, clarifying that actions taken pertained to a different survey number and did not affect the land in question. The Court found no violation, finding the claim baseless, and closed the case.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case is closed with no proceedings further against the respondents.

Nadendla Koteswara Rao Vs Sri a.Vandanam — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE NO.1602 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The order, violation of which is alleged in this contempt proceedings, is the order in W.P.No.25202 of 2011 dated 8.9.2011 whereby this Court directed the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession over the land in question till action was taken to evict them from the said land in accordance with law, including after putting them on notice and giving them an opportunity of being heard.

¶5

The present contempt case is filed alleging that the official respondents were encouraging the 4^th respondent in the Writ Petition to encroach upon the land adjoining the church building. In the counter now filed it is stated that the church and its enclosed site are located in Sy.No.351/1 of Kanumalla village; the site, where the church is located has not been interfered with much less encroached upon; the allegation that the official respondents were encouraging Sri P.Sundaram to encroach upon a portion of the land adjoining the church building is not true; on the request of the inhabitants of the colony in Sy.No.350/1 and 3 of Kanumalla, the Tahsildar had proposed an alternative path way to the well in Plot No.18 to enable them to fetch drinking water; and the R.D.O., Kandukur had approved the proposal submitted by the Tahsildar to amend the lay out creating a passage of a width of one meter on the south edge of plots 17 and 18 to fetch drinking water from the well in Plot No.18.

¶6

It is evident, therefore, that neither the land on which the church is located, nor the land adjoining the church building, (both of which fall in Sy.No.351 of Kanumalla village) have been interfered with, much less encroached upon by the respondents; the petitioners have not been dispossessed from the land in question; and action, which the respondents have initiated, relates to land in a different survey number and not in Sy.No.351. The order of this Court in W.P.No.25202 of 2011 dated 8.9.2011 has not been violated much less wilfully and deliberately.

¶7

I see no reason, therefore, to proceed further against the respondents under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. The contempt case is, accordingly, closed.

¶8

___________ 09-03-2012

¶9

asp

Nadendla Koteswara Rao v. Sri a.Vandanam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadendla Koteswara Rao v. Sri a.Vandanam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Shivasankar Rao Vs Sri G.Ravi Babu

M/s Ivrcl Assets and Holdings Limited Vs -

Coromandel International Limited, Vs -

M/s Gujarat Petrosynthese Limited Vs M/s Southern Agrosynthese Limited

S. Nageswara Rao Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

Employees Recreation AssociationClub, Registration No.4/94 Vs The Superintendent of Police