Boyina Satyanarayana, v. Smt. Sailaja Iyyer
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court closed a contempt case alleging violation of an order in a land dispute. Disputed factual claims regarding possession rendered a contempt enquiry unfit, as the Court could not record findings on such issues. The matter was referred to the pending writ petition with a status quo interim order in operation.
What the court decided
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
CONTEMPT CASE No.445 OF 2008
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed with a prayer to punish the respondents herein under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging that they had wilfully and deliberately violated the order of this Court dated 24.10.2007 in W.P.No.10189 of 2000.
I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.
As could be seen from the material available on record, the petitioners claim title and possession in respect of Ac.0-69 cents of agricultural land situated in R.S.No.287/6 of Sanarudravaram, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District. It is claimed that their predecessorin-title purchased the said property under different registered sale deeds executed from the year 1962 onwards. The petitioners had earlier filed W.P.No.24777 of 1997 aggrieved by the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kalidindi, dated 10.09.1997 directing eviction of the petitioners claiming that the land in question was a poramboke land. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 10.07.1998 with a direction to the respondents to follow the procedure prescribed under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 if the petitioners were liable to be evicted and till such time they should be allowed to continue in possession. Thereafter a fresh order dated 6.8.2000 came to be passed under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 which was challenged by the petitioners by filing W.P.No.10189 of 2000. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by order dated 24.10.2007 thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 6.8.2000 and directing the Mandal Revenue Officer to pass a reasoned order afresh in accordance with law.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a contempt enquiry is maintainable when disputed questions of fact regarding land possession exist.
Whether the Court below recorded a specific direction prohibiting disturbance of petitioners' possession under the impugned order.
Whether the petitioners should pursue their rights in the pending writ petition regarding legality of eviction proceedings.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioners
- respondent
Respondents
Coram
G. Rohini
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · January
- Registered
- Case no.
- CC/445/2008
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court