Dismissed

Vutukur Lakshmi Devi v. I Munilakshmi

Telangana HC27 Jul 2018CC/319/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt case alleging violation of a High Court order regarding land access. The petitioner claimed respondents obstructed road use for a bus shelter. The Court held that given conflicting affidavits and the limited scope of contempt jurisdiction preventing merits consideration, no contempt was established.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Case was dismissed as there did not appear to be any contempt on the part of the respondent, and the merits will be considered in the main Writ Petition.

Vutukur Lakshmi Devi Vs I Munilakshmi — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM CONTEMPT CASE No. 319 OF 2018

¶2

J U D G M E N T:

¶3

This Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the order dated 01.08.2016 in W.P.M.P.No. 29635 of 2016 in Writ Petition No. 24055 of 2016.

¶4

The above said Writ Petition was filed challenging the action of the respondent in preventing the petitioner from using the land covered by Survey No. 236 as road for ingress and egress to her patta land covered by Survey No. 235. This Court, while entertaining the Writ Petition, directed Respondents 3 and 4 therein not to prevent the petitioner from using the land in Survey No. 236 of Molakalapundla Village for ingress and aggress into her land covered by Survey No. 235, without issuing any written communication to her.

¶5

Now, this Contempt Case has been filed stating that the petitioner had set up a lorry-weighing machine in her patta land in Survey No. 235 and that the respondent, in order to prevent her way to patta land, earmarked the front portion of her land i.e. in Survey No. 236, for construction of the bus shelter and the Sarpanch of Sydapuram and his followers have commenced the work also. It is her specific case that in spite of bringing to her notice the order passed by this Court on 01.02.2018, the respondent has not taken any action to prevent the construction of the bus shelter.

¶6

A counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent – Tahsildar, Sydapuram Mandal, wherein it was stated that the land in Survey No. 236 of Molakalapundla Village was classified as ‘road

¶7

¶8

poramboke’ and that the petitioner’s land in Survey No. 235 is abutting the said road poramboke on Eastern and Southern side. It was further stated that the petitioner is at liberty to use the road poramboke land for ingress and egress into her patta land. It was also stated that recently, funds were sanctioned from the MP grants for construction of a small bus shelter with the measurements 18 x 8’ and the site was handed over to the Assistant Engineer P.R., but the petitioner has been physically obstructing the construction of the bus shelter, which is useful for the villagers of Ramasagaram.

¶9

In view of the allegations of the petitioner and the counterallegations of the respondent – Tahsildar, it cannot be said that the respondent has wilfully and deliberately violated the order complained of in this Contempt Case. Here, it is also to be noted that the scope of the Contempt Case is very limited and the merits of the matter cannot be gone into and dealt with therein. Hence, observing that the same be considered in the main Writ Petition itself, the Contempt Case is dismissed, as there does not appear to be any contempt on the part of the respondent.

¶10

Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

¶11

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶12

27^th July 2018

¶13

ksld

Vutukur Lakshmi Devi v. I Munilakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vutukur Lakshmi Devi v. I Munilakshmi

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

Raminei Venkayya Chowdary Vs Deputy Commissioner Endowments Department

Patibandla Vijayalakshmi Vs Sec. Housing Municipal Admn.Andu.D. AND2 Ors.

The Official Liquidator Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-1

Konduri Ramesh Babu, Hyderabad, Ts., and Anr. Vs the State of a.P.,Gad.,Hyderaba, and 3 Otrs.

B.Nagapurna Rao Vs Commissioner v.Wada Muncipality and Anothe

Rachkonda Radhakrishna Murthy, Vs The Government of A.P. rep by Principal Secretary