Disposed

Immadi Narasimha Rao, v. G. Ramesh

Telangana HC4 Jul 2014CC/364/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court closed a contempt case alleging disobedience of an order. The respondent surveyed the land and identified the plot in court. The petitioner admitted the plot's occupation by a third party but was given liberty to seek appropriate remedies for disputes.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; liberty granted to petitioners to approach appropriate fora for disputes regarding possession.

Immadi Narasimha Rao, Vs G. Ramesh — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE No.364 of 2014

¶3

Dated: 04.07.2014

¶4

Between:

¶5

Immadi Narasimha Rao and another

.. Petitioners

and

Sri G. Ramesh

.. Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt. S. Annapurna

¶11

Counsel for the Respondent: AGP for Revenue

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 20.09.2013 in W.P.No.27396 of 2013.

¶15

In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is averred that in order to comply with the order of this Court, a survey was sought to be conducted for demarcation of plot No.9 in Sy.Nos.27/3 and 28/3 of Nanakramguda Village, that the Mandal Surveyor on 19.05.2014 has submitted that the land, survey of which is sought for, is part of the survey number and as the applicants have not submitted any relevant documents relating to the said land, survey and demarcation could not be conducted and that, therefore, an endorsement bearing No.Ms/175/2014 dated 25.05.2014 was issued to the petitioners, requesting them to produce the relevant documents.

¶16

In the reply affidavit, the petitioners have denied receipt of the said endorsement dated 25.05.2014.

¶17

At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) submitted that today, the Mandal Surveyor has identified the plot claimed by the petitioners in the presence of the petitioners themselves and that the said plot is under occupation of Emmar Properties. The petitioners, who are personally present in the Court, have admitted this position.

¶18

In the light of the above facts, by identifying the plot claimed by the petitioners, the respondent has complied with the direction granted by this Court. If the petitioners have any dispute with the agency stated to be in possession of the plot claimed by them, they shall be free to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶19

Subject to the liberty given to the petitioners as above, the contempt case is closed.

¶20

C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶21

4^th July, 2014 IBL

Immadi Narasimha Rao, v. G. Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Immadi Narasimha Rao, v. G. Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gonda Hari Prasad Vs Naroju Virender

Friends Coop Housing Society Ltd., Vs Smt. Singireddy Narsamma

B. Venkateswarlu Vs K. Veeramma

M/s. Bhavanarishi Coop. House Building Society Vs Donkena Bhaskar

Gandani Srinivas, Vs Sri G.Ramesh

Haragopal Educational Society, (Regd.No.707/1994) Vs Smt.Dr. P.Revathi Reddy