Dismissed

P.Balavva, Medak Dist. and Another v. Venkatram Reddy, Medak Dist. and 2 Others

Telangana HC19 Mar 2019CC/1073/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge of the High Court closed a contempt case alleging wilful disobedience of an order regarding land possession. The Court held that no further cause was made out for contempt jurisdiction since the respondent authorities had settled the matter by paying compensation to the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed. No order as to costs.

P.Balavva, Medak Dist. and Another Vs Venkatram Reddy… — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE No.1073 of 2017

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This contempt case was instituted alleging willful disobedience to the order dated 16.06.2015 passed in W.P.M.P.No.22304 of 2015 in W.P.No.16662 of 2015. By the said order, the respondent authorities were directed not to interfere with the possession of the writ petitioners over the lands covered by their pattadar pass books except in accordance with the due procedure laid down by law, provided the said pattadar pass books were still subsisting. Alleging interference with their possession despite the aforestated order, two out of four writ petitioners filed this contempt case.

¶5

The Tahsildar, Siddipet Mandal, the third respondent, filed a counter-affidavit. Therein, he stated that the names of the petitioners in W.P.No.16662 of 2015 were recorded as assignee pattadars in the revenue records in relation to the land in Sy.No.1340 of Siddipet Town and Mandal, but the total extent of Acs.91.04 guntas in this survey number was classified as ‘Bancharai (Government land)’. He further sated that the land was suitable for establishment of buildings and after due negotiation, the writ petitioners consented to relinquish their title and rights in relation to the subject land. According to the Tahsildar, compensation was paid to the petitioners herein under acknowledgment on 06.06.2018. He further stated that such payment was made to the two petitioners in this contempt case under Cheque bearing Nos.041866 and 041868 dated 06.06.2018, each drawn up for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, aggregating to Rs.5,00,000/-, in full and final settlement of their claims.

¶6

In the light of the aforestated counter-affidavit averments, Sri G.Anandam, learned counsel for the petitioners, sought time on

¶7

¶8

15.03.2019 to obtain instructions from his clients. Today, learned counsel states that he was unable to get any instructions from his clients.

¶9

As the counter-affidavit averments clearly give sufficient details of the matter having been settled by the authorities with the petitioners in this contempt case by payment of compensation, this Court is of the opinion that no further cause is made out for exercise of contempt jurisdiction.

¶10

The contempt case is accordingly closed. No order as to costs.

¶11

____________________
JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR
Date:19.03.2019
GJ/PGS

P.Balavva, Medak Dist. and Another v. Venkatram Reddy, Medak Dist. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Balavva, Medak Dist. and Another v. Venkatram Reddy, Medak Dist. and 2 Others

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. Srinivas Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Yadavelli Varija Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. G. Vindhya Rani Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Hussain Mirza Vs The State Government of Telangana

Chukka Ramulu, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Next education India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Trimurti Learning Services Pvt. Ltd.