Disposed

Putta Madhusudan v. a Ramesh

Telangana HC25 Mar 2022CC/1569/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two contempt cases regarding non-compliance with interim and permanent injunctions in two separate suits, the Court found that the primary objection was resolved but a boundary dispute persisted regarding 80 square yards of land used for parking surrendered vehicles. The Court held that as this was a boundary dispute, it must be resolved in civil court.

What did the court decide?

The contempt cases were closed. The petitioners were granted liberty to pursue their remedies in the pending civil suit or file a new suit regarding the boundary dispute.

Putta Madhusudan Vs a Ramesh — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

rN THE HIGH COURT Fq5-T!_E SrArE oF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF I\4ARCH TWo THoUSAND AND rwrNrrirwo''", '

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶5

CONTEMPT CASEN OS: 1569A ND 15 70 0F 2021

¶6

CON TEM PT CASE NO: 1569 0F 2021

¶7

contempt case fired Under Sections 1 0 to 12 0f contempt of courts Act to punish the respondent herein for wirfury viorating, disobeying the order of the High court dated. 17.11.2021passed in r.A.No.2 0,f 2021in writ petition No.29220 of 2021.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Putta ltladhusudan,_S/o. Ramulu, Age. 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Flat No. 2201 , LH-15, Lanco Hiils, lr/anikondi, HydeiaOaO _-sbOOas^'

¶10

G. Rajender Goud, S/o. Yenunappa, Aged 49 years, Occ.Business, R/o.H.No. 8-6-208, Padmavathi Colony, N[ahabubnagar.

¶11

J. Haritha, Wo. Venkat Reddy, Age.42 years, Occ. Business, R/o. B-51/5/A, Teachers Colony, It4ahabubnagar.

¶12

...Petitioners

¶13

AND

¶14

A. Ramesh, S/o. Unknown to the PetitionerAged Major, Occ. Sublnspector of Police Rural Police Station, [Vahabubnagar.

¶15

.,,Respondent

¶16

Counsel forthe Petitioner: M/s^{MAHESH RAJE}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent:^{GP FOR HOME(TG)}

¶18

SE^{Noi1570OF2021} co^NTEMPTCA of Contempt^{of Courts Act} ContemPt^{Case filed Under Sections10 to 12} g, disobeYing^{the Order of} dent^{herein for willfullyviolatin} to Punish^{the resPon} 2 ot^{2021 in Writ Petition} 17 .11.2021^{Passed in I A.No} the^{High Court dated'} No.29020^{ot 2021 '} n "^{"'I "i} . n'^{n d r a,s h e kat} -ff^ofJ:',?jia 5" 5 ili'^{I'""t 8{; #& r1 i Jffi i'* it"'? ;} B:t,l?,"r:t"h#n'u^t'tugut ' , a) vears, occ^Business' fl'" #^{?3 ;"'""} ^^{: : :',} '^{k i ?,'l,fr e :g ' #i"l':t ffi 1'Ai:'} 'R^{jy;ss,x,,is:sil;i:::flj;"#sli;fs:'R,n"ilffiLlg!:'t!:i?*y"'}

¶19

"'Petitioners

¶20

AND

¶21

A. RameshlnsPector^o iB,"1i"BltYB:iJ:",?,ilxi:ifi^:.ig'"t?or'occSub-

¶22

...ResPondent

¶23

Counsel^{for the Petitioner: M/s MAHESH RAJE} Counsel^{for the Respondent:GP FOR HOME(TG)} The Court^{made the following:COMMON ORDER}

¶24

¶25

HONOUILABLE SRI JUSTICtr B. VIJAYSEN^REDDY

¶26

CONTEMPT CASE NOS .1569 AND^r570 0F²⁰²¹

¶27

COMMON ORDER:

¶28

These contempt cases have been filed^{aggrievedby the} action of the respondents in^{disobeyingthe orderspassed by this} Court in I.A. No.2 of 2021 in^{W.P. No.29220 of 2021 dated} 17.11.2021and I.A. No.2 of 2021^{in W.P. No.29020of 2021 dated} t7 .11 .2021 .

¶29

Heard Mr. Mahesh Raje,^{leamed counsel for the} petitioners in both the contempt cases; and^{learned Government} Pleader tbr Home, and^perused the^{materialon record.}

¶30

3 ^^'Ihe respective orders^{r-tndercontempt are as under.:}

¶31

"Heard the learned counsel for^the petitioners and the learned Assistant Govemment Pleader fbr the respondents.

¶32

Petitioners state that^{they have instituted suit} in O.S. No.220 of^{2019 before the Principal} Senior civil Judge,^{Mahabubnagarfor declaration} ol title and^{injqnctionagainst the Commissioner} Municipality.^{MahabubnagarTown.TheCourt}

¶33

)

¶34

belou'^{passedorderdated 05'122019in I A'} No.662 of^{2019 in O.s' No'220o12019rcstraining} the defendant^{/Commissioner'} Mahabubnagar rvith peaceful MunicipalitY^{frominterfering} possession^{and enjoyment of the petitiouersin} respect of^{land measuring800 square yards} situated at^{YenugondaSivar of Mahabubnagar'} The^{petitionerssubmitsthat in spite of injunction} order being^{granted, the 4tr' respondent' Sub-} Inspector^{of Police, MahabubnagarRuralPolice} Station, is^{interferingwith their peaceful} possession^{and dumping the seized vehicles in the} property of^{the petitioners without authority of} law. Photographs^{of excavation and dumping} vehicles are^{filedby the petitioners along withthe} material PaPers.

¶35

In view of^{the fact that the Court belowpassed} temporary^{injunctionin favour ol the petitiorlers} tl.re dumping^{of seized vehiclesbeing madeby the} respondent^{Nos.4 and 5 isprimafacie} unauthorised.^{In the circumstances,this Court is} of the considered^{opinion that there shall be} interim direction^{to the respondentNo'4' forthwith} remove seized^{vehicleslying inopen plot} admeasuring^{800 squareyards in Sy'No 205'} situated at^{Yenugondavillage, Mahabubnagar} Municipal limits '^{... ..."}

¶36

¶37

¶38

"lIeard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for the respondents.

¶39

Petitioners state that they have instituted suit in O.S. No.13 of 2016 before the Family Court curn VIII Additional District and Sessions Court, Mahabubnagar for declaration of title and inj unction against hte Commissioner Municipality, Mahabubnagar Torvn. The said suit was decreed by order dated 01.06.2017 restraining the defendant/Commissioner, Mahabubnagar Municipality from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of open plot admeasuring 800 square yards out of 1600 square yards in Survey No.205, situated at Yenugonda village, Mahabubnagar Municipal Limits. The petitioner submits sdthat in spite ol injunction order being granted, the 4th respondent, Sub-inspcctor of Police, Mahabubnagar Rural Police Station, is interfering rvith the ir peaceful possession dumping the seized vehicles in the propertl, of the peritioners without authority of law. Photographs of excavation and dumping vehicles are filed by the petitioners along with the material papers.

¶40

In view of the fact that the Court below^passed pennanent decree in lavoqggf the petitioners the

¶41

¶42

durnping^{of seized vehiclesbeingrnade by the} respondent^{Nos'4 and 5 isprimalacie} unauthorized.^{[n the circumstances'this Court is} of the^{consideredopinionthat there shall be} interim^{direction to the respondentNo'4' forthwith} remove^{seized vehicleslying open plot} admeasuring^{800 squareyards in S-v No 205'} situated^{at Yenugondavi'llage' Mahabubnagar} MuniciPal^limits' "'^"'"

¶43

the Sub^{InsPectorof Police,} 5.^{ResPondent No'4} Mahabubnagar^{Rural Police Station'MahabubnagarDistrictfiled} counter.^{It is submittedthat in due obedienceto the orders passed} by this^{Court, on 18'12'2021' respondentNo'4 alongwith his statl} removed^{the seized dumpedvehiclesin the operr plot admeasuring} 800 square^{yards in SurveyNo'205' situatedat Yenugonda Village'} Mahabubnagar^{Municipal limits' To that effect' necessary} photographs^{are takenand filed along with the counter affidavit'} However,^{some delay occurredin implementing the orderswhich} isneitherwilfulnorwantonandheseekspardonofthisCourt.

¶44

When^{the mattercameup for hearing on 06'01'2022'it} was represented^{by the leamed AssistantGovemment Pleader for}

¶45

¶46

)

¶47

Home that the orders under contempt were complied with^by respondent No.4, however, the same was refuted by^{the leamed} counsel for the petitioners contending that still^{seized vehicles are} l1,ing in the subject propefty. This Courl by^{the order dated} 06.01.2022 directed the contemnor - respondent to^{appear before} this Court in person on 19.01.2022 and^{clarifythe position. It was} observed in the same order that the appearance of^{the contemnor} shall be dispensed with if the dumped /^{seized vehicles are} lemoved from the subject^plot to the satisfaction^{of the petitioners.}

¶48

On 19.01.2022, when the matter^{againcame up for} hearing, the leamed counsel for the^{petitioners submittedthat the} orders under contempt have not been complied^{with.However, the} contemnor - the Sub Inspector of^{Police who appeared through} virtual mode submitted that all dumped I seized^{vehicleshave been} removed from the subject site^{and no interferenceis causedby the} police to the petitioners^{in respect of the subject landadmeasuring} 1600 square^{yards of land in SurveyNo.205 situatedat Yenugonda} village, Mahabubnagar.^{As there were contradictorystands' this} Court thought^{it necessary,o uppolnlun advocateCommissioner to}

¶49

¶50

inspect^{the subject land' Accordingly'Mr' C' Kumar' Advocate'} was appointed^{as Advocate Commissionerand was directedto} inspect^{the subject site, measure the same and submit a report} along with^{roughsketchand photographs'}

¶51

The^{learnedAdvocate Commissioner submitted his repott} dated 17.02.2022.^{The detailedreport disclosesthat the Advocate} commissioner^{has relied upon the roughsketchplanprepaledby} the Mandal^{Licensed Surveyor,measuredthe subject land based on} such rough^{sketchplan, took measurementsandobtained} signatures^{of both parties'On takingmeasurementsof the subject} land, it^{waspointed out by the leamed AdvocateCommissioner} that the^{vehicles (seized) are parked by the police in 80 square} yards of land^{i.e., 10 feet width x 94 feet length which is located} abutting^{the policestation wall being claimedby the respondent} No.4 as^{per the plan attached to the panchanama dated29'10'2010'} Thus, as^per the^{report of the leamed AdvocateCommissioner' the} land of 1536^{squareyards out of 1600 squareyards clairnedb-u-- the} petitioners is lying^{vacant and in the remaining 80 square yards of}

¶52

¶53

¶54

subject / disputed land, seized and dumped vehicles are parked by the police.

¶55

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that directions may be issued to the respondents to remove vehicles frorn the area of 80 square yards of the land as it belongs to the petitioners. However, the learned Assistant Govemment Pleader fbr Home submitted that the land adrneasuring 600 square yards in Survey No.205 of Part - A is in possession of respondent No.4 Police Station as per the panchanama dated 29.10.2010 (which is enclosed at page Nos.34 and 35 of the Advocate Commissioner's report.)

¶56

The learned Govemment Pleader for Home vehementlv contended that the police station is in possession of the land admeasuring 501.67 square meters (600 square yards) allotted to thern in 1989 and the dispute, if any, regarding actual extent or boundary, as the case may be, has to be decided by the Civil Court and it is not for this Court to enter into such controversy.

¶57

¶58

¶59

Taking^{the above facts and circumstancesinto} consideration,^{this Court is of the opinion that contempt cases} deserve^{to be closedas the order under contempthas been} complied^{with by respondentNo'4' In so far as the remaining80} square^{yards of the subject/ disputed land is concerned' this Court} is of the^{view that such dispute cannotbe <iecidedin a writ} jurisdiction.^{The record disclosesthat respondent No'4 - Rural} Police Station,^{Mahabubnagar'is in possessionof 600 squareyards} of land^{as evidentfrom the pancdhnama dated 29'10'2020 whichis} contiguous^{to the land ofthe petitioners'The photographs filedat} page Nos.46^{and 47 of the leamed AdvocateCommissioner's} report^{show that the vehiclesare kept by the police in one row} along the^{wall of the police station building' Whiie the police} claim it is^{part of their allotted600 squareyards of land'the} petitioners^{claim,it comes within their land of 1600 square yards'} The dispute,^{thus, is essentially regarding actual extentof the land} and a boundary^{dispute for which this Courtis not the appropriate} forum. In^{the circumstances,the petitionersare givenlibert"v to} pursue their remedies^{in the pending civil suit or any other new suit}

ln respect of the land admeasuring g0 square yards wherein

¶64

vehicles of the police are parked.

¶65

With the above observations and directions, the contempt cases are closed. No order as to costs.

¶66

This Court places on record appreciation for Mr. C. Kumar, leamed Advocate Commissioner, in filing a detailed report along with relevant documents and photographs which assisted this court to resolve the issue speedily and in an effective manner. The learned Advocate Commissioner shall be paid an additional fee of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand onry) by the learned counsel

¶67

lor the petitioners apar1 fi.om Rs .20,000/- alread y paid.

¶68

To,

¶69

SD/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPYII sEcTto OFFICER

¶70

1' A Ramesh, occ. Sub-rnspector of porice Rurar porice station, Mahabubnagar District.

¶71

? 9nu^{CC to M/str4aheshRaje,} Advocate [OpUC]

¶72

Two CCs to Gp for Home ftc), High-c;L.t rJrjn" State of Tetangana. lourl

¶73

Two CD Copies MMK SB '.'ru-

¶74

HIGH COURT

¶75

DATED:2510312022

¶76

-i 6-;'5l,tI5:
o'+
q
ooq5 ,?5 lrrl ?i'i?'

¶77

COMMON ORDER

¶78

CC.Nos.1569 and 1570 ot 2021

¶79

CLOSING THE BOTH CONTEMPT CASES

¶80

<br>

Putta Madhusudan v. a Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Putta Madhusudan v. a Ramesh

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

Md.Majeed Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Yellam Kavitha Vs The State of Telangana and 2 Others

Yellam Kala Vs State of Telangana and 2 Others

M/s Neo Infra Vs The State of Telangana

Zeeshan Baseer Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

K. Chandra Shekar Reddy Vs a Ramesh