Dismissed

S. Vishweshwar Rao v. K. Anitha

Telangana HC4 Apr 2023CC/125/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt case, the respondents submitted letters clarifying the status of gap area maps requested by the Court. The Court found no willful disobedience worthy of punishment and closed the contempt proceedings, allowing the petitioners to avail further legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings closed. Liberty granted to petitioners to avail remedies as available to them under law.

S. Vishweshwar Rao Vs K. Anitha — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁷ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 125 OF 2022

¶7

Contempt case under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to Punish the Respondents herein for violating, disobeying the Orders of the High Court dated. daled 2T-10-2021 passed in W.P.No. 1524112019

¶8

Between:

¶9

'l . S. Vishweshwar Rao, S/o Pandu, Aged about 55 years, Flat No. 206, Sri Home Apartments, ll Floor, Hasthinapuram, R.R. District.

¶10

Akula Pullaiah, S/o late Chandraiah, Aged about 60 years, Resident of H.No. 10-1-7411 , Srinivasa Nagar Colony, Karmanghat, Hyderabad

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

K. Anitha, W/o not known to the petitioners, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Tahsildar, lbrahimpatan mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

2 Srinivas, Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District. (R2 Suo Motu impleaded as perthe Hon'ble Court Order, dated 11.11.2022in C.C.No.125 ot 2022)

¶15

L. Ram Mohan, S/o. Not known to the^petitioners, Aged about 48 years, OccTahsildar, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R.District.

¶16

(R-3 impleaded as pet the Court Order dated 06-01-2023 in lA. No.0't/2023s in CC No. 12512022)

¶17

...CONTEMNORS

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners: SR[. G. RAMA CHANDER RAO

¶19

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

ll I

¶23

'tIIE HON'BLE SIiI JUS'I'ICE A. AI}IIISHEK REDDY

¶24

CONTIa,NIPT CASFI No.l25 of 2022

¶25

OIIDER:

¶26

Alleging violatiorl of thc order dared27.l0.202l^passed by this Court in Writ Pctil.ion No.1524 I of 2019, the^present Contempt Case has bcen filed

¶27

By the above said order dated 27.10.2021 in Writ Petition No. I 524 I of 2019. this Court has directed the respondent No.l her.cin to subrnit a detailed report, as requested by the District Collector, Ranga Reddy, vide letters dated 06.07.2017 and 15.12.2017, if not already submitted, as expeditiously as possible, prel'erably, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthe order.

¶28

In the present Contempt Case, the respondent No.2 has filed a counter, in which, it is stated that after the receipt of the copy of the order dated 21 .10.2021 in Writ Petition No.l524l of 2019, the respondent No.l herein has addressed a letter dated 06.12.2021 to the respondent No.2 and the operative portion of the said letter dated 06.12.2021 reads as follows:

¶29

"ln lhis regard, i( is to submit that in this regard a report vide relerence 4'h cited (copy enclosed) lus already been submitted to

¶30

.'!\R..' C.C No. I25 oi 2022

¶31

¶32

lhc Asst Dlrcclor. Suney & I and Ilccords. Ranga^l{cddy lJlstnct slaling lhitl no lnap sho$'ing gap arr:a is availablc^{in this} olTicc to asccrlar[,ide[tily^(hc present field^position ofgap^arca. Ir is requcsted l()^pl()\idc urap sltou,ing thc^gap area ancl^arrauge te dcnlrrcatc tl)c saure ou lhc fi.ld to takc funhcr lrcccssary action in tlris oraltcr."

¶33

Further, the respondent No.2 has addressed a letter dated 09.05.2022 to the respondent No.l and the said^letterdated

¶34

09.05.2022 reads as follows:

¶35

"[ invite your attcntion to the reference cited and inform that as per thc rcquest of tlre lahsildar of Ibrahimpatnam Mandal vcriticd this ollicc filc No.Al/1658/96 Khanapur Village Sy.No:80. 81, 82 and 8l ncw Sy.No. are incorporated^{in the} Khanapur Village up to an cxtcnt 80^(3-32), 8l^(13-04), 82 ('l-24), 83^(32-02); the xcrox copy of^{VillageMap of} Khanapur. Ibrahimpatlam Mandal are sending herewith^for identification ol- thc above Laud."

¶36

Having regard to the above, it cannot be said that there^is

¶37

any willful disobedience to the order of this Court^dated

¶38

27.10.2021 in Writ Petition No.15241 of 2019.

¶39

Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed^granting

¶40

liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedies as available^to

¶41

them under law.

¶42

SdI M. MANJULA DEPUW REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRl. G. RAMA CHANDER^RAOAdvocate [OPUC]

¶47

Two CCs to the Government^{Pleaderfor Revenue,High Court for the State of} Telangana ai Hyde€bad^(OUT)

¶48

Two CD Copies

::@

I I I l : I I I I

HIGH COURT

AAR, J

DATED: 0410412023

| 311'iilYi.1?.1

ORDER

GC.No.125 of²⁰²²

CLOSTNG THE^CONTEMPT

CASE

S. Vishweshwar Rao v. K. Anitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Vishweshwar Rao v. K. Anitha

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

Dev Anand Deva, Mumbai Vs Chairman and M.D., Small Industries Devp Bank of India, and 2 Ot

Dr.S.K.Mahmood,Usmania University, Hyderabad Vs Osmania University, Rep.by Its Registrar, Hyderabad

Sri T.A. Kaleeswaran, Hyderabad Vs Deputy General Manager, Khairtabad, Hyderabad and 1

Rasakatla Sagar Vs Kusuma Rajamani

K.Rama Krishna Rao Vs Sri C.Narayana Reddy, IAS

G.S. Narayana, Vs Apsrtc, Rep. by its Managing Director