The High Court held that an assessment and panchanama were conducted, negating allegations of non-compliance. The court closed the contempt case, directing petitioners to pursue remedies in the underlying writ petition.
The Contempt Case was closed; petitioners were directed to work out remedies in the writ petition.
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 OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD
FRIDAY. THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 364 OF 2020
(Contempt Case U/s. 10 lo 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the Respondents herein for wilfully and deliberately violating the Orders of the High Court dated 2310712019 in wP No.13716 0f 2019)
Between:
AND
trict. Sri B. Sandeep, l,4andal Surveyor, leela Mandal, ,:t_rlglKB?1ilfl f+; RESPONOENT
lA NO: I OF 2020
Application under,Section 151 of CPCpraying that for thereason statedin the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, theHigh Court maybe pleasedto direct the respondent to comply with the orderpassed by thisHon'ble Court dated 23.7.2019 in W.P.No.13716 of 2019in its trueletterand spirit, by conductingsurvey of the land to an extent of Ac.5.00 in sy.No.321 of Gudidoddivillage,H/o Yapadinne, leeja Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal district,pending disposal oftheContemptCase.
For the Petitioners : SRI MEKA SUBBA RAO, Advocate
For the Respondent: sRl BoYA RAVINDERREODY,Advocate
The Court made the following: ORDER
|.,u.l t t- \t) -.a, t t,,, :t):t)
l
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CONTEMPT CAsE NO.364 0F 2020
ORDER:
Heard Mr. Meka Subbarao learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Boya Ravinder Reddy learned counsel for respondent.
4 From the material enclosed to the counter-affidavit, it is apparent that lleld inspection was conducted, and on
assessment of land, panchanama was drawn on 2g.0g.2019 and based on the assessment, the Mandal Surveyor submitterl
PNR,J CC \io.361o12020
J
his report to the Tahsildar.This exercise was preceded by Notice dated 24.08.2019. Therewere some more notices issued later also. It appears thatneighbours are actually objectingto conduct survey. Accordingto the survey report, namesof the petitioners are not shownin the revenue records.
Sd/.K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// ,wSECTION UFFICER
To
1 Sri B.Sandeep, Mandal Surveyor, Leeja Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District 2 One CC to Sri lvleka Subba Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to Sri Boya Ravinder Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies
5 One Spare Copy K
HIGH COURT
I
DAf ED:0410312022
ORDER
sE ST4 I
k
oo 0 6 ApB 20i2
*
t
CC.No.364 of 2020
CLOSING THE CC.
6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the failure to conduct a survey constituted a wilful violation of the High Court's order.
Whether the Contempt Case should be maintained given that a field inspection and panchanama were already conducted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P. No. 13716 of 2019Referred¶25
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Vadde Parashuramudu, Vadde Thimmappa, V. Krishna
B. Sandeep
P Naveen Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
