Disposed

Gandani Srinivas, v. Sri G.Ramesh

Telangana HC4 Jul 2014CC/477/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Court disposed of a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience and demolition. Finding petitioner allegations unsupported due to lack of evidence, the Court adjourned to verify possession documents and directed the respondent not to interfere pending regularization.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case disposed; petitioner directed to submit written representation with copies of applications for regularization within two weeks; respondent directed not to interfere with possession pendi

Gandani Srinivas, Vs Sri G.Ramesh — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE No.477 of 2014

¶3

Dated: 04.07.2014

¶4

Between:

¶5

Gandani Srinivas and others

.. Petitioners

and

Sri G. Ramesh

.. Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. M. Vidya Sagar

¶11

Counsel for the Respondent: AGP for Revenue (Assignment)

¶12

The Court made the following:

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 21.09.2013 in W.P.No.25684 of 2013.

¶15

The gravamen of the allegations made by the petitioners against the respondent is that the latter has highhandedly entered the plots in their occupation and demolished the structures existing thereon.

¶16

The respondent has filed a detailed counter-affidavit denying the said allegation and stated that when the petitioners were attempting to raise structures, they were informed not to do the same as the land belongs to the Government. He has also stated that as the applications stated to have been submitted by the petitioners, except the application of petitioner No.2, were not available, memo dated 28.12.2013 was issued to the petitioners, requesting them to submit their documents and that so far they have not submitted their documents. The respondent has, thus, denied any breach of order of this Court.

¶17

Though the petitioners alleged that the structures which were in existence were demolished, the respondent has denied the said allegation. In the absence of evidence to substantiate the allegation made by the petitioners, it is not possible for this Court to convict the respondent in a contempt proceedings, which is quasi criminal in nature. The fact appears to remain that except the application of petitioner No.2, the alleged applications of other petitioners do not appear to be available with the respondent. It is, therefore, appropriate that the petitioners approach the respondent with a written representation enclosing the copies of applications, if any, made by them, along with the documents, for regularization of the plots in their occupation, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On

¶18

receipt of the said representation, the respondent shall verify the documents and give appropriate response to the petitioners within two weeks thereafter. Pending this process, the respondent and his subordinates shall not interfere with the petitioners’ possession of the plots. The petitioners shall not raise any structures till the abovementioned process is completed.

¶19

Subject to the above directions, the contempt case is disposed

¶20

of.

¶21

________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 4^th July, 2014 IBL

Gandani Srinivas, v. Sri G.Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gandani Srinivas, v. Sri G.Ramesh

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

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

Immadi Narasimha Rao, Vs G. Ramesh

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