Dismissed

Dommalapati Ramakotaiah v. Sri D S Lokesh Kumar

Telangana HC2 Nov 2018CC/1282/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case, the petitioner alleged violation of Court directions by the District Collector deleting land from pattedar pass books. The Court found the case closed due to subsequent developments, including the respondent's explanation and the petitioner not opposing the proceedings. The contemnor was discharged.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case was closed and the contemnor was discharged.

Dommalapati Ramakotaiah Vs Sri D S Lokesh Kumar — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE No.1282 OF 2018

¶3

DATED :02.11.2018

¶4

Between :

¶5

Dammalapati Ramakotaiah, S/o.Narayana, Aged about 75 yrs, Occu : Agriculturist, R/o.Thimminenipalem Village, Chinthakani Mandal, Khammam District.

¶6

.. Petitioner And

¶7

Sri D.S.Lokesh Kumar, The District Collector, Khammam District & others.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

This court made the following :

¶10

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶12

CONTEMPT CASE No.1282 OF 2018

¶13

ORDER :

¶14

W.P.No.10595 of 2018 was disposed of by order dated 09.04.2018. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition was that the respondent authorities are trying to interfere and threatening to dispossess the petitioner from his land and the same is illegal.

¶15

On behalf of the respondents, learned Government Pleader stated before this Court that enquiry was scheduled on 11.04.2018; that appropriate action would be taken only after affording due opportunity and on due consideration of the explanation; and till a decision is made, no steps would be taken to cancel the pattadar pass books and title deeds and to dispossess the petitioner before completing the enquiry. The same was recorded and accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed of.

¶16

This contempt case is filed alleging that contrary to the undertaking given before this Court, the respondents willfully and deliberately deleted the land to an extent of Ac.13-34 guntas in Sy.Nos.73 and 75 from the pattedar pass books and issued latest pattedar pass books on 15.05.2018 and the same amounts to violating the directions of this Court.

¶17

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, it is stated that enquiry proceedings could not be conducted on 11.04.2018 on administrative reasons; the matter was adjourned to 22.05.2018; hearing was conducted on

¶18

¶19

22.05.2018, and again on 29.06.2018; and submissions made by the petitioner were recorded. At that stage, petitioner filed W.P.No.18246 of 2018 alleging deletion of property from the e-pattedar pass books without notice or opportunity and contrary to the earlier orders of this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file revision against the alleged deletion of names and further directions were issued.

¶20

In view of the subsequent directions of this Court in W.P.No.18246 of 2018 dated 06.06.2018, the same was informed by the petitioner, hearing was held on 29.06.2018. It appears petitioner deposed that in view of the orders passed by this Court on 06.06.2018, the appeal case under hearing should not be continued and a memo to that extent was filed. In view of this development, the proceedings were closed before the Revenue Divisional Officer.

¶21

It is categorically asserted that the name of the petitioner is not deleted from the ROR record and 1B Register in respect of Sy.Nos.73 and 75. According to 2^nd respondent, in view of the policy, e-pattedar pass books are issued where there is no dispute and wherever there is dispute the properties are kept in B-Register to take up the issue of pattedar pass book at a later point of time. Thus, it is not the case of deleting the name of petitioner from the pattedar pass books.

¶22

Further on account of subsequent developments, petitioner himself stated before the Revenue Divisional Officer not to proceed further in view of the subsequent orders of this Court and pendency of revision before the higher authority, it

¶23

¶24

cannot be said that the notices issued on 23.03.2018 are deemed to be pending for the petitioner to allege violation. Further the explanation offered by the respondents for restricting issuance of e-pattedar pass books only to some other extent of lands and not issuing e-pattedar pass books for the land in Sy.Nos.73 and 75 cannot be said in derogation to the directions of this Court to hold them guilty.

¶25

Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. The contemnor is discharged from the contempt proceedings. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

¶26

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

¶27

2^nd November, 2018 Rds

Dommalapati Ramakotaiah v. Sri D S Lokesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dommalapati Ramakotaiah v. Sri D S Lokesh Kumar

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

T. Sambasiva Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Davala Nageswara Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Kankatala Chalamaiah Vs The State of Anahra Pradesh

R. Srinivasulu, Vs The State of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary

G.S.S.S. Suryanarayana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh.

N. Sahadeva Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh