Contempt filed against respondents for alleged non-compliance of order allowing negotiations regarding disputed property acquisition and road widening. The witness submitted there was no demolition; the court closed the case upon satisfactor hearing arguments.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEN/BER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1504 OF 2019
Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of CourtsAct 1971 punish the Respondents herein for gross and wilful disobedience orders of this Hon'ble Court, dated, 2411012019 in WP No. 13396 of 2019 Between:
Counsel for the Petitioners: sRt vtJAy KUMAR HERooR
Counsel for the Respondent: No.1 GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent: No.2 cp FoR RoAoS ANo BUtLD|NGS
Counsel for the Respondent: No.3 sRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR (Sc FoR MUNICIPALITY)
The Court made the following: ORDER
)
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
CONTEMPT CASE No.15O4 OF 20L9
ORDER:
W.P.No. 13396 of 2Ol9 was filed by the petitioners to declare the action of the respondents in marking their properties with an intention to demolish or dispossess them without lollowing the due process as illegal and arbitrary. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, it was represented by learned standing counsel for the respondent - Municipal Council that all the property o\rners, who were likely to be affected by the widening ol road lr,ere called for a meeting and in the meeting, many of the property owners agreed for resolution of the issue by way ol settlement and few property owners have not agreed. It was also represented that the petitioners did not consent for any settlement. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the respondents to follow the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 20 13 ifthe respondents require the property of the petitioners.Libertywas also granted for negotiation between thepetitionersand the respondents. Alleging thatthe said orders are not compliedand the respondents are attempting todemolish the propertiesof the petitioners, this contempt caseis filed.
authorities would take steps as directed by this Court for negotiation with the owners of the properties which are coming within the road widening area.
SD/- M. VIJAYA BHASKAR DEPUTY R G TRAR
To,
,TRUE COPY//
seqr{Zeeffi-
A]X
(
HIGH COURT
PNR,J
DATED:1 1t09t2O2O
ri s Ia
3 22SEP2020 z
a',
ii.
i-
=-_.:1:
ORDER
CC.No.1504 of 2019
CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE
{sY
Be.lugam Kavita @ Laxmi, Smt.
Jyoti, Smt.
B.Jagadishwar
B.Suresh
Mohd Yousuf
Atif lunwar
P NAVEEN RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
