Dismissed

Dommata Ramesh v. Sri Banothu Ramu Naik

Telangana HC4 Feb 2022CC/110/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case under the Contempt of Courts Act, the petitioner sought punishment for the respondent's alleged willful disobedience of a stay order. The court held that the impugned order had not included a direction to restore the petitioner's name in revenue records and thus, no disobedience occurred.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case was dismissed and miscellaneous petitions pending in it were closed.

Dommata Ramesh Vs Sri Banothu Ramu Naik — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

CONTEMPT CASE No: 110 OI 2422

¶6

Contempt Case filed Under Sections 10 to 1 2 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent herein for willfully violating, disobeying the Order of the High Court dated. 23.12.2020^passed in LA.No.1 of 2020^{in Writ Petition No. 23050of 2020.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dommata Ramesh, S/o. Bhikshapathi, aged 38^{Years, Occ.Agriculture,} Rio.Gundlapalli Village, Yadagirigutta Nilandal,^{NalgondaDistrict.}

¶9

...Petitioner/Petitioner/writ Petition

¶10

AND

¶11

Sri Banothu Ramu Naik,^{S/o. not known,Aged about 50 years,Occ.Tahsildar'} Yadagirigutta tvlandal Yadadri-Bhongir^District.

¶12

...RespondenU3'd RespondenU3'd^Respondent

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRIM/s SIVALENKA ASSOCIATES}

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent:^{GP FOR REVENUE}

¶15

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶16

¶17

THE HON,BLE DT. ]USTICE SHAMEEM^AKTHER

¶18

CONTEMPT CASE No.11O of 2O22

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This Contempt Case, under Sections 10 to^{12 of Contempt of} Courts Act, is filed by the^{petitioner,wherein,the following prayer is} made

¶21

"...to summon the respondent/contemnor herein and^punish him under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act,^{for his willful} disobedience and insubordination of the stay order dated 23,12.2020 passed io I.A.No.1 of 2020 in W.P.No.23050 of 2020 by the Hon'ble Dr, lustice Shameem Akther and the said action amounts to undermining the majesty/ prestige and honour of this Hon'ble Court and as such he is liable to be^punished by this Hon'be Court in the interest of iustice and^pass such other order or orders..."

¶22

Heard. Perused the record.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that this Court vide order dated 23.12.2020 in W.p.No.23050 of 2020 was pleased to grant stay of operation of the impugned Memo, dated 19.06.2020 till 20.01.2A27 and the same was extended from time to time. It is further contended that when there is stay of operation of the subject memo, the respondent ought to have restored the name of the petitioner in the online and relevant records in respect of the subject land, but he failed to do so. Thus, he detiberately disobeyecl the order of this Court and requested this Court to punish the respondent in terms of Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶24

The order dated 23.t2.2020 passed by this Court in

¶25

W.P.No.230SO of 2O2O reads as fo ows:

¶26

',Heard the learned counsel for the petjtioner, the Iearned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue for the respondents and perused the record.

¶27

¶28

As seen fr( no.atngtzi2"o), ,n."I^t'"Memo, dared r 9.06 ) notice ro rhe ,",,r,o]], 'l-no 'u'a,"n ui*,^{',"iJo,to'o' videFile} had been ,";,;;,1:rt"Tn"nl u^'u,, .;'^.';J'fl:""" I'il"j Under these r i\4emo, dared;;;;:T::::es, rhe operation or :::"ffi T: District, is stayed tili tl respondent,",;ilj",;, H Jl[ ff ",,*:;:,:' posr on 20.01.;e2l:,:t^{0"" ot i"u.,rn,'' "'"Yadadri Bhonsir} 5. There is no speci direction to restore the name oF the petitioner in the revenue ifi c re ords as contended by the rearned counser ror the petitioner. when is no direction For restoration of the name of the petitioner,n ,tnttu on"n" records in respect of the subiect property, the question or.'n" the order of this court does not arise as pointed out o, ,n''toou''nn iearned counsei for the petitioner. In view of these .,r.rr.tun.l there is no disobedience on the part of the respondent

¶29

Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed_

¶30

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Contempt Case, sha ll stand closed.

¶31

To,

¶32

SD/-CH.VENKATESWARULU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \// SECTION OFFICER

¶33

1 Sri Banothu Ramu Naik, Tahsjldar, yadagirigutta Mandal yadadrFBhongir District.

¶34

One CC to lr4/s SIVALENKA ASSOCIATES, Advocate [OpUC]

¶35

Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the Slate ;f Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies

¶36

One Spare Copy MMK TR \ ,p

HIGH^COURT

DAl1Dto4lo2lzozz

ORDER

CC.No.110^{of 2022}

.,|
1({b s)A t.
/r*
t
d z4 FrB ?i22

¶42

DISMISSING THE CONTEMPT CASE

¶43

2-
q6 <br>

Dommata Ramesh v. Sri Banothu Ramu Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dommata Ramesh v. Sri Banothu Ramu Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Lava Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Boya Shankaramma alias Gudise Anjanamma Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. KeluthBasunda Vs The State of Telangana

B.Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Syed Shah Salah Quadri Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Cheguri Satyanarayana Vs The State of Telangana