Dismissed

R.v.Ghoutam v. Sri Mukesh Kumar Meena IAS

Telangana HC1 Aug 2014CC/666/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a contempt case alleging disobedience of a court order directing the return of land possession to them if held by the respondent corporation. The court found that a subsequent survey revealed partial possession by the corporation, the compound wall was removed, and steps were taken to hand over 5 guntas of land. The court held that continuing proceedings served no purpose and dis

What did the court decide?

Proceedings closed; parties free to avail legal remedies if aggrieved by survey reports.

R.v.Ghoutam Vs Sri Mukesh Kumar Meena IAS — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.666 of 2014 Date:01.08.2014

¶2

Between: R.V.Ghoutam, S/o Late P.Vittal Rao and three others.

¶3

…… Petitioners

¶4

And:

¶5

Sri Mukesh Kumar Meena, Collector, Hyderabad District and four others.

¶6

..…Respondents

¶7

Counsel for the petitioners: Sri N.Raghavan

¶8

Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 5: GP for Revenue for the

¶9

State of Telangana Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4: Sri O.Manoher Reddy

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.666 of 2014

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order, dated 27.08.2013, in Writ Petition No.8090 of 2013.

¶14

By the above-mentioned order, this Court has directed respondent No.2 herein to get the survey conducted as directed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Secunderabad Division, Hyderabad District in the presence of the petitioners as well as the officials of the Andhra Pradesh Central Power Distribution

¶15

Corporation Limited (for short ‘the APCPDCL’). It was further directed that if it is found from the survey report that the land in Survey No.11 is handed over to the APCPDCL, respondent No.1 herein shall direct that the land be handed over back to the petitioners after removing the structures, if any, raised therein. Alleging that this order has not been complied with, the writ petitioners filed this Contempt Case.

¶16

Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that in compliance with the order of this Court, he has requested the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad to depute a Surveyor to his office so as to complete the survey work; that accordingly, the Deputy Director has deputed the Deputy Inspector of Survey and the latter has conducted survey in respect of the land in Survey Nos.10/1 and 11 of Tirumalagiri Village in the presence of the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.3 and 4 and submitted his report; that the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad has informed, vide his memo No.A5/31/2013, dated 31.10.2013, that the survey and demarcation done by the Deputy Inspector of Survey was found defective and hence, the same was suspended while ordering re-conducting of survey and demarcation of the land in Survey No.11 of Tirumalagiri Village.

¶17

At the hearing, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the State of Telangana, on instructions, submitted that the subsequent survey conducted by the Deputy Inspector of Survey revealed that an extent of 5 guntas of land in Survey No.11 was found in possession of the APCPDCL and in view of the same, the compound wall raised enclosing the said land was removed. He has further stated that further steps are being taken for handing over possession of the said 5

¶18

guntas of land to the petitioners as per the abovementioned order of this Court.

¶19

Sri O.Manohar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APCPDCL, stated that his clients have received the survey report on 30.07.2014 and that they will avail appropriate legal remedies in that regard.

¶20

Sri N.Raghavan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the respondents are bound to implement the first survey report which revealed that the entire land in possession of the APCPDCL is situated in Survey No.11 of Tirumalagiri Village belonging to the petitioners.

¶21

In my opinion, the questions, whether the petitioners are the absolute owners of the land in Survey No.11 of Tirumalagiri Village or not and which of the two survey reports is correct, do not fall within the scope of this Contempt Case. This Court by the abovementioned order has given a direction to respondent No.2 to hand over the land in Survey No.11 to the petitioners, if the same is in possession of the APCPDCL, as only the land in Survey No.10/1 was allotted and handed over to the APCPDCL by the Government. Thus, the scope of the Contempt Case is confined only to the implementation of the abovementioned order of this Court. Now that a survey is stated to have been conducted and respondent No.2 is stated to have removed the compound wall enclosing the extent of land which is situated in Survey No.11 and is allegedly in the possession of the APCPDCL, and in the light of the submission of the Government Pleader that an extent of 5 guntas of land will be handed over to the petitioners, no purpose will be served by continuing the Contempt proceedings. However, if the petitioners and the APCPDCL feel aggrieved by the survey reports,

¶22

they shall be free to avail appropriate legal remedies against the same.

¶23

The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed.

¶24

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 01^st August, 2014 DR

R.v.Ghoutam v. Sri Mukesh Kumar Meena IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.v.Ghoutam v. Sri Mukesh Kumar Meena IAS

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

Subedhar Mohinder Singh, Vs P.Jeevan

M/s Fusion Foods, Vs Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority

Smt. Nadiminti Venkata Someswari Swathi, Vs Chimmapudi Santosh Venkata Rama Krishna

K Satyanarayana Vs Gade Koti Reddy

Karnam Narsimhulu, Vs Chakali Jangaiah

M/s. Axis Clinicals Limited Vs -