Chukka Ramulu, v. The State of Telangana
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court, in a Review Application and Contempt Case, considered an allegation that a prior order was obtained by unauthorized alterations. Finding no positive direction for record changes, the Court refused to review the order on merits but granted time to the Tahsildar to consider representations and pass appropriate orders with notice.
What did the court decide?
Two months time granted to Tahsildar to consider representations and pass appropriate orders after notice; Contempt Case closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TIVENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE NO: 713OF 2O1S
AND
REVTEW l.A. NO.l 0F 2019 lN W.P.NO.33678 0F 2018
c.c. No. 713 0F 2019
Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts ,Act 1971 to punish the respondent herein for willfully violating the Order of the High Court dated 19-03-2019passed in W.P.No. 33678 of 2018 Between:
Chukka Ramulu, S/o Late Veeraiah, Aged about 75 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Janagam Village, Narayanpur Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, Telangana State ..,PETlTlONER
AND
V. Dayakar Reddy, S/o. not known to the petitioner, Tahsildar, Narayanpur Mandal, Yadadri District, Telangana State. ... Respondent
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should review an order passed in a writ petition where the petitioner alleged procedural impropriety by the respondent.
Whether the prior order issued positive direction for changing revenue records requiring adjudication on merits.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Chukka Ramulu
- respondent
State of Telangana
- respondent
District Collector, Yadadri District
- respondent
Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir
- respondent
Tahsildar, Narayanur Mandal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · March
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/33678/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court