Disposed

P. Narsimha Reddy v. Smt. K.Nikhila

Telangana HC24 Mar 2022CC/162/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case, the petitioner challenged the respondents for allegedly violating a High Court order. The petitioner submitted evidence that the survey was conducted as directed. The court found the order satisfied and closed the contempt proceedings, directing the petitioner to seek further remedies under appropriate law if dissatisfied.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Case No. 162 of 2022 is closed. Petitioner directed to approach concerned authority with an application if any grievance persists.

P. Narsimha Reddy Vs Smt. K.Nikhila — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF^IVARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 162 OF 2022

¶6

(Contenrpt Case Represented Undcr Section l0 to I2 of Contempt of Cortrts Act to punish thc Respondertt herein for, rvillfirllv^{violating, the Ordcrof tlte} High Court dated 02-1'l-2021 in W.P. No. 27518 of 2021 )

¶7

Betwee n:

¶8

P. Narsimha Reddy, S/o. P, Narayana Reddy, Aged aboul⁷⁴ Years,^Occ.Ex- Serviceman, Rlo.7-2-6, Kothagadi Village, Vikarabad^{l,4andal,Vikarabad District(} ...PETITIONER Ranga Reddy).

¶9

AND

¶10

Smt. K.Nikhila. W/o not known Occ.The District Collector. O/o District Collectorate,Vikarabad, Vikarabad District⁽ Ranga Reddy)

¶11

Smt. Vijaya Kumari, W/o not known Occ. The Revenue^{DivisionalOfficer, O/o} R D O Office Vikarabad Revenue Division,Vika ra bad, Vikarabad District (Ranga Reddy)

¶12

Sri Rami Reddy, S/o not known r/o not known, occ. Assistant Director of Survey and land records O/o Director of Survey and land records Vikarabad, Vikarabad District ( Ranga Reddy)

¶13

Smt.lr/.Sharmila, W/o not known Occ. The Tahsildar, O/o tt4andal Revenue Office, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District ( Ranga Reddy)

¶14

Sri lvlahender, S/o not known r/o not known occ. The l\rlandal Surveyor, O/o Mandal Revenue Office,Vikarabad IVlandal, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District⁽ Ranga Reddy) ... Respondent

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. KOPPULA GOPAL

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : SRI BOYA RAVINDER REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2 & 5 : G.P. FOR REVENUE

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI .IUSI'ICE A...\I}IIISIIT]K ITI]DDY

¶20

CON]'EI'IP'I CASII No.l62 of 2022

¶21

oRDtilL:

¶22

Learned counsel appearing on behalf o1'the c<tntemnors has placed on recorci the ltanchnnanra clatecl 15.02.2022 alorrg rvith the skctch nrap, to shrtrv that the survey has bccn condr.rctecl iu rcspect o1' Irilc No.Brl9(ri 202 l. in l.lirrsuancc o[' the order datecl 02.t1.2021 passecl by this Court in \1r'it Petition No.275l ti o1'201 I .

¶23

Having regard to tl.re above, this Contempt Case is closed. If tlie petitioner has any grievance, hc is liee to llle appropriate application/appeal beibre the authority concerned and on such application/appeal being madc, the authurity

¶24

conccrned shall consider ancl pass apploltriatc clrders stlictlv in

¶25

accorclance rv ith larv

¶26

¶27

SD/.CH.VE^N KATESWARU^LU DEPUTY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' secril$!rrrcen

¶28

To,

¶29

1 Smt. K Nikhila, W/o^{not knownOcc.TheDistrictCollector, O/o District} Collectorate,Vikarabad,^{VikarabadDistrict( Ranga Reddy)}

¶30

2 Smt. Viiava Kumari. Wio not known^{Occ The Revenue DivisionalOfficer, O/o} n O O btticeVit<a rabad Revenue Division,Vikar^{abad, VikarabadDistrict(} Ranga Reddy)

¶31

Ofl4'f

¶32

¶33

3 Sri Rami Reddy,^{S/o not known r/o not known' occ AssistantDirectorof} ;;;;; ; ;J;;'d^{iecoros olo"oir"itoioi s'*"v and landrecords vikarabad'}

¶34

v,turaOaa District^{( RangaReddY)}

¶35

4 Smt.M.Sharmila,^{W/onot known Occ The Tahsildar' O/o lr'4andal Revenue} 5r,'cij, virli"oib,^{Vit<arabadDistrict( Ransa Reddv)}

¶36

5 Sri l,4ahender,^{S/o not known r/o not known.occ Thetr'4andalSurveyor'O/o} il;;;;i'i&;;;btrii",Virr'ro1J^{rr/l'nait,Vikarabad' VikarabadDistrict(} Ranga ReddY)

¶37

One CC to^{SRl. KOPPULA GOPAL ,Advocate IOPUC]}

¶38

Two CCs^{to G.P. for Revenue, High Court for the state of the Stateof} Telengana at^Hyderabad.

¶39

One CC to^{SRl. BOYA RAVINDER,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶40

Two CD Copies

¶41

One Spare^CoPY

IVN/A v

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410312022

t:
d g9l'rl''

ORDER

CC.No.162 of 2022

CLOSING THE CONI'EI'I P]'

¶49

lr\ L.-
ln

P. Narsimha Reddy v. Smt. K.Nikhila

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Narsimha Reddy v. Smt. K.Nikhila

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

Sri Surya Prakash Charitable Society Vs The Registrar Registrar of Societies, Red Hills

A. Narsimha Reddy and 27 others Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

N Kesava Reddy Vs the State of Telangana

V.Prem Kumar Reddy alias Prem kumar Vs Sri. Anudeep Durishetty IAS

P. Ramulamma Vs Sri Somesh Kumar and 2 Others

Sri. Chakravarthula Sridhar Vs Sri v.Raghava Reddy