Kumbala Raji Reddy, v. Ronald Ross
Case brief
What is this about?
The court closed a contempt case regarding willful disobedience of an order for land acquisition procedures, noting that the respondents produced a preliminary notification, rendering further proceedings unnecessary.
What did the court decide?
Contempt case closed; open for petitioner to take appropriate proceedings.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
C.C.No.2336 of 2015
ORDER
This contempt case is filed complaining willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in implementing the orders passed by this Court in WP No.15055 of 2015, dated 28.05.2015 whereby respondents 2 to 5 were directed to follow due process of law if they want any portion of the private patta lands of the petitioner for any public purpose.
After several adjournments, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents produced before this Court a copy of the preliminary notification dated 26.10.2016 issued by the office of the District Collector, Siddipet, seeking to acquire an extent of 264.70 square yards of land in Sy.Nos.468 & 469 of Narayanaraopet Village, Siddipet District & Mandal.
In view of the same, the further proceedings in the present contempt case are not necessary.
Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, it is open to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law.
__________________________________ JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
31st October, 2016 rkk
Parties & counsel
- respondent
Respondents 2 to 5
Coram
A. Ramalingeswara Rao
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · October
- Registered
- Case no.
- CC/2336/2015
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court