Dismissed

Mittapally Chandraiah v. Sri Prashnth Jeevan Patil

Telangana HC21 Mar 2023CC/1356/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court closed a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of a 2020 order regarding government land allocation. Finding no evidence of deliberate violation as the land was handed over to Panchayats for specific public purposes, the Court observed the case is closed for contempt but open for survey.

What did the court decide?

This Contempt Case is closed and it is open to petitioners to file an application for survey and demarcation of land before the Tahsildar.

Mittapally Chandraiah Vs Sri Prashnth Jeevan Patil — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^3167]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF IUARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO;^,t 356 0F 2022

¶7

Contempt Case under Sections l0 to 12 ol Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondents herein for willful disobedience and disrespect of the orders of the High Court daled 2811012020 passed in lA No. 1 of 2OZO in Wp No. 1 91 3 4 of 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

'l . Mittapally Chandraiah, S/o Late Laxmaiah @ Lachaiah, Aged 51 years, 9cc.Agriculture,^{Rl/o Akkannapet Village and M5ndal, SiddipetDistrict. '}

¶10

1. M.ittapally Rakesh, S/o Late Ramaiah, Aged 29 years, O6c.Agriculture, Fl/o. Akkannapet Village and Mandal, Siddipet District.

¶11

...PET|TONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

'1. Sri Prashnth Jeevan Patil, Working as District Collector, Siddipet District,

¶14

Siddipet,

¶15

2 9l_S^a!!yqpgl .RgQdy, Working as Mandal Parishath Devetopment Officer (MPDO), O/o MPDO Husnabad Akkannapet Mandal, Siddi[et District,

¶16

1. Sri Laxmi Kantha Rao, Working as Panchayat Secretary, d/o.panchayat secretary,AkkannapetViraseAkkannrr:l.HEg$trJtoifrt,rJ'Jrl,t**o,

¶17

Forthe Petitioners: SRI RAMESH CHILLA, Advocate

¶18

For the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

.TIIE HOI ;']}t,8, SITI.IUSTICE, A. ABHISHF-K II.]DDY

¶22

( ONTEMPT CASE No.l356 <tf 2022

¶23

ORDITR:

¶24

Allegirr 3 violation of the order dated 2[i.10.11020 passcd b1 this⁽ orrrt in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in Writ Petition }.,rr: .1!, I i4 of

¶25

2020, the p:e ent Contempt Case has been flled.

¶26

In the,. )llnlers filed by the respondent Nos2 and 3, it is specilicallv ir ,,erred tlrat the total extent of the lan:l in Survev No.387 is nr rr: than 300 acres, out of which, hr: r:vcnue authoritv crtl:erned has issued proceedings dated 05.08.2020 allocating th^, lands belonging to the Go'"enlr3l.t iirr the purpose of P lle Prakruthi Vanam, Dumping Yar<l irs .,,yell as Srnashana Vr til<a (Vaikunta Dhamam), which is n existence sitrce decade:^'[hat except developing Palle l)raknrtlri /anarn, Dumping Ya d and Smashana Vatika in thc (ioverrtrnent land, there is rro in elference bythe respondents in the s,rhject lands of the petitir nt:rs. That the pits have been dug n th,: land, which has br en handed over to the Grant Iranchlyat by the levenuc aurh rrities for the pllrpose of palle prakr.rtlri ./analn, only lbr thr: 1 urpose of planting trees. Further, it ir; :,tated that

¶27

{ {R, J c.c No I356 ol2022

¶28

¶29

it is for the petitioners but not thc official respondents to

¶30

establish where their land is situated.

¶31

Having regard to thc averment rnadc in thc counter that the lands which are used for the purposc of palle prakruthi Vanam, Dumping Yard, Smashana Vatika, have been handed over to the Gram Panchayat by the reveltue authorities, it cannot be said that the official r-espondents have deliberately or willfully violated the order of this Court in l.A.No.l of 2020 in Writ Petition No.19134 of 2020 dated 28.10.2020.

¶32

Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. However, it is open to the petitioners to file an appropriate application seeking survey and demarcatior.r of their land, 'oefore the Tahsildar concemed and on such application being filed, the Tahsildar concerned shall consider the same and pass

¶33

appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶34

Sd/-CH.VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// (-D SECTION OFFICER

¶35

¶36

Sri Prashnth^{Jeevan Patil, DistrictCollector, Siddipet District'Sid-dip-et,} i. 5;i b;Ih;;;aineoav,^{Mandal Parishath Developmentofficer (MPDo)'} Akkanndpet Manda[,^{Siddipet Distri-ct.} 3. S;ii-;;;ik""t " nd,o, Panchavat^{Secretary, o/o'Panchavat Secretary'} - A[r.innaoet Villaqe Akkannapei Mandal, Siddipet District' 4. One CC to Sri Ramesh^{Chilla,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶37

d. i; aaii" cp^{ior Revenue,'Highcourt for the-stateof Telangana. [oUT]} 6. Two CD CoPies Kj J

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:211031202:

ORDER

--a=-j I/, (: ori
\
i!i
1 I Jltit 2[23
,/

¶43

CC.No.1356 of 202 |

¶44

CC CLOSED.

¶45

qr?
\ -)

Mittapally Chandraiah v. Sri Prashnth Jeevan Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mittapally Chandraiah v. Sri Prashnth Jeevan Patil

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

Manohar Singh S/o Late Sheetal Singh, Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C. rep.by its Vice Chairman/

Smt.S.Prabhavathi Vs Smt.Dasari Hari Chandana, I.A.S

The Depot Manager, Apsrtc Manthani Depot Vs The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court

Ms.Guduru Rukmini, D/o. G.Seeta Rama Rao, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Pasula Chenna Reddy (Died) and 4 others Vs Sri K.S. Srinivasa Raju, I.a.S., and 3 others

Ch.Yadagiri Vs Northern Power Distribution Company and Another