Dismissed
Syed Zakir Hussain v. Sri Venkateshwarlu and Another
Telangana HCCC/935/2019
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY C.C.NO.935 OF…
What the court decided
AI extract
SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY C.C.NO.935 OF…
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
C.C.NO.935 OF 2019
O R D E R
As the request of the petitioner for survey and demarcation of his land was not being considered, he filed W.P.No.7997 of 2019, and this court by order dated 15.11.2018, disposed of the writ petition in terms of the directions issued in W.P.No.4811 of 2011 dated 28.4.2016, wherein this court directed the respondents to receive the representation of the petitioner therein and conduct survey and demarcate the subject land in terms of the circulars in vogue.
As per the directions of this court in W.P.No.7997 of 2018 dated 15.11.2018, the 1st respondent issued endorsement No.B/801/2019 dated 20.02.2019, stating that on verification of the revenue records, it is found that the subject land is Government land and that the petitioner has not produced any document of title in his favour, and accordingly rejected his request.
Aggrieved by the endorsement dated 20.02.2019 and contending that the said endorsement cannot be treated as compliance with the directions of this court, and that it amounts to willful disobedience on the part of the respondents, the present contempt case is filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the subject land and he has all the required documents to prove his title, but the respondent No.1 in the endorsement dated 20.02.2019 stated the subject land is Government land and rejected the request of the petitioner
for survey and demarcation and the same is in violation of the order passed by this court.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that on verification of revenue records it is found that the subject land is Government land and petitioner has also not filed any document to show that he is the owner of the subject property and hence, the 1st respondent made the endorsement dated 20.02.2019 rejecting the request of the petitioner.
It is to be seen that as the petitioner has not produced any document to show that he is the owner of the subject land, and on the other hand, as the revenue records revealed that it is Government land, the 1st respondent made the endorsement dated 20.02.2019, and correctness or otherwise of the same
cannot be gone in the contempt case.
Accordingly, the contempt case is closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the endorsement dated 20.02.2019 in accordance with law.
Interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No
order as to costs.
----------------------------------------- A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
DATE:08—11—2019
avs
Petitioner
1st Respondent
A.Rajasheker Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court