Dismissed

Mekala Bixapathi , Buchaiah v. Mrs.Pamela Satpathi

Telangana HC11 Dec 2023CC/1550/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a contempt case filed against the District Collector and Tahsildar for alleged violation of a writ court order regarding property alienation. The Court found no merit as there was neither an injunction nor a restraining order prohibiting the sale, and dismissed the contempt petition.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Case dismissed; miscellaneous applications pending in the contempt case stand closed.

Mekala Bixapathi , Buchaiah Vs Mrs.Pamela Satpathi — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t³¹⁸³ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE No : 1550 of 2023

¶7

contempt case fired under sections 10 to 1 2 of contempt of courts Act to punish the respondents 3 & 5 herein for wilfuly viorating the order of the High Court dated O4-O8-2O22 passed in W,p.No.21940 ot 2021.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mekala Bixapathi @ Buchaiah, S/o yadagiri,

¶10

Smt. Mekala Balamani, W/o Bixapathi @ Buchaiah,

¶11

...PetitionerMrit^petitioners

¶12

AND

¶13

Mrs.Pamera satpathi, The District colector, yadadri-Bhwanagiri District. Z. Ul. I {a-r1 Nqik, The Tahsitdar, yadagirigufta Mandal, yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District-5081 15.

¶14

...Contemnors/Respondents No.3 & 5

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. pApAtAH pEDDAKULA

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondents: ASSTSTANT Gp FOR REVENUE

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HONOTTRABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY CONTEM PT CAS E No.l550 oF 2023

¶19

ORDER (oriAL)

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Governmcnt pleader for Revenue appearing lor responden tsr'co ule tntlors, and perused the material on record

¶21

l. It is subrtritted by learned counsel for the petitioners tirar deslritc rhe orcler dared 04.0g.2022 passed by this Court in W.p. No.21940 of 20r r , respondent No.2 - contemnor has cntertaired and le-uistcred sale deed bearing document No.2l56 of 2022 17. 10.2011. rvhich u,as executed by Mrs. Mekala Suvama \I.tr. N4ckala Narsinrha in lavour olMr. Survu Srikanth Goud S/o. Sun.u Venkataiah (loud and he also obtained pattadar passbook and title dccd. It is starcd thar subsequently Mr. Survu Srikanth Goud Srcr Sulvu Venkataiah Goud executed sale deed in favour Mrs. Mora Viiaya Laxnri Wio. Mora padma Reddy, under regisrered cloctrrnerrr bcarirrs tr.curnent No.647 of 2023 dated 07.02.2023.

¶22

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to thc observations made by this Court in paragraph No.9 of the ordcr dated 04.08.2022 in W.P.No.21940 of 2021 that "anv order or direction issued in revenue record made pursuant to the order passed by the Special Tribunal as confirmed in this Writ peririon are however are subject to result of the said pending suit i.e., O.S.No.95 o12016."

¶24

[-earned Assistant Govemment Pleader for Revcnuc appealing lbr respondents/contemnors has submitted that therc is rro iniunction order passed in O.S.No.95 of 2016 restraining the delcndants in the suit lrom alienating the suit schedule propeftv, nor there is any restraining or prohibiting order in W.P.No.2 1940 ot'102 I

¶25

On perusal of the order dated 04.08.2022 in W.P. No.2 1940 o1202 l, i1 is clear that that claim of the petitioners challenging the ordcr of thc Special Tribunal dated 23.06.2021 in^('ase No.F2/2 108/202 I was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed -l'hcre is no lestraining order prohibiting respondents in the u,rit

¶26

¶27

petrtron or parties to the suit in O.S.No.95 of 20 l6 tiom alienating

¶28

the suit schedule property.

¶29

6 ln vierv of the above, the question ol violation of order dated 04.08.2022 in W.P.No.2l940 of 2021 does nor ar.ise. Therc are no

¶30

rnerits in the Contempt Case.

¶31

Accordingty, the Contempt Case is disrnissed.^'l'here shall

¶32

bc no order as to costs

¶33

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, i I any,

¶34

pending in this contempt case stand closed

¶35

/ITRUE COPY//

¶36

Sd/- I. NAGA LAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR N

¶37

SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To, 1. One CC to SRl. PAPAIAH PEDDAKULA,^Advocate loPUCl 2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High^{Court forthe} State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. (OUT) 3. Two CD Copies

¶39

Kvr/kam c\l?

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 111212023

ORDER

CC.No.155O of 2023

IHE S 14 16-
(
q
(
o5 a.
0 5 titAn 2024
(
+ +
i:-.t P-1- r't \ l t o

¶45

DISMISSED

¶46

0,ss

¶47

Mekala Bixapathi , Buchaiah v. Mrs.Pamela Satpathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mekala Bixapathi , Buchaiah v. Mrs.Pamela Satpathi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Amarender Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its District Collector

Mirza Wajid Ali Baig Vs The State of Telangana

Shakir Jahan Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Pabba Ravinder Vs The State of Telangana

Palusa Anjaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Sandhyarani Mandadapu Vs The State of Telangana