The court disposed of a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a prior directive to survey land. It closed the case noting that a Supreme Court interim order precluded the survey, rendering the respondent's explanation valid.
The contempt case is closed with no order as to costs.
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 L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Contempt Case No.1903 of 2012
ORDER:
The petitioner filed W.P.No.28751 of 2012 complaining that despite the submission of application, the respondent did not conduct survey of land in survey No.129/52 of Shaikpet Village, Hyderabad. The writ petition was disposed of on 14.09.2012, directing the respondents to take necessary steps on the application within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondent did not conduct the survey.
The respondent herein filed a counter-affidavit. He stated that soon after receiving the orders of this Court, he directed the Deputy Director of Survey and Land Records, to conduct survey, and the latter, in turn, noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order in SLP No.26140 of 2011, directing that no third party rights shall be created over the disputed land. It is stated that non-conducting of survey is on account of the orders passed by this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue.
This Court certainly directed the respondent to take necessary steps on the application of the petitioner. However, it is a matter of record that the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an interim order in SLP No.26140 of 2011. Though the petitioner submits that he is not a party to the SLP, the order passed by the Supreme Court is in relation to a particular piece of land. It does not make any difference whether the
petitioner is a party to it or not.
The contempt case is accordingly closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.
Dated:19.02.2013
GJ
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Contempt Case No.1903 of 2012
Date:15.02.2013
GJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to uphold a contempt proceeding against the respondent for non-compliance with the direction to conduct a land survey in view of a Supreme Court order regarding third-party rights.
Whether the Supreme Court order in SLP No. 26140 of 2011 precludes the conduct of the survey and dismisses the contempt petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
SLP No.26140 of 2011Referred¶7
Petitioner (unnamed in text)
Respondent
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
