Kurmula Chinna Linga Reddy v. Sri T. Vinay Krishna Reddy, I. a. S. , and 2 others

Telangana HC24 Feb 2023CC/168/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case regarding disobedience of a writ order directing issuance of a pattadar passbook, the Court found that the petitioner failed to disclose pending proceedings before a Special Tribunal. Consequently, the Court closed the contempt case, leaving the aggrieved party to challenge the Special Tribunal's order separately.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; petitioner advised to challenge the Special Tribunal's order.

Kurmula Chinna Linga Reddy Vs Sri T. Vinay… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR

¶5

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 168OF 2023

¶6

Contempt Case under Sections^'10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to punish the Contemnors/Respondents for willfully and wantonly disobeying the orders dated 04-07-2022 passed in W.P No. 28221 ot 2022.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kurmula Chinna Linga Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, aged about 45 years, Occ Agriculture, Fl/o. Nilaaygudem Village, Tripuraram lVlandal, Nalgonda District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Sri T. Vinay Krishna Reddy, t. A. S., District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶12

Sri Rohith Singh, Revenue Divisional Officer, tt/iryalguda Division, Nalgonda District.

¶13

Sri lslawath Pandu Naik, Tahsildar, Tirumalagiri Sagar Mandal, Nalgonda District

¶14

...CONTEMNORS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri RAPOLU BHASKAR

¶16

Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

I I

¶19

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No. 168 of 2023

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This contempt case is filed alleging violation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.28221 of 2022, dated 04.O7.2022, wherein this Court directed the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the online application bearing No.LM2200028993 submitted by the petitioner for issuance of physical pattadar passbook in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 1.29 guntas in Survey No.550/3 situated at Tirumalgiri Revenue Village, 1l1y1algiri Sagar Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶22

¶23

In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents placed before this Court a copy of the order passed by the Special Tribunal, Na-igonda, in New Case No.F2 / Spl.Tribunal I 0666 I 202 1, dated 2 L.Og.2022, wherein an observation was made to the online application in question and an order was passed by the Special Tribunal directing the Tahsildar not to issue pattadar passbooks to both parties to the dispute in the said case and to put the subject land in prohibitory properties list under dispute category. The petitioner herein is a party, who is respondent No.3 to the said case, and while approaching this Court by liling W.P.No.28221

¶24

¶25

¶26

of 2022, the petitioner herein has not disclosed about the pendency of the said case before the Special Tribunal, thereby made this Court to dispose of the said writ petition at the admission stage. The operative portion of the order of the Special Tribunal reads as under:

¶27

"... In view of the above, I do not frnd any infrrmities in the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal. The Tahsildar is directed not to issue PPBs., to both parties and put the lands in prohibitory list under dispute category. Both parties are directed to seek redressal before the Court of law."

¶28

In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to proceed further in the contempt case and the same is accordingly closed leaving it open to the petitioner to take steps against the order, dated 21.O9.2O22, passed by the Special Tribunal, if so advised.

¶29

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this contempt

¶30

case shall stand closed.

¶31

Sd/. M RAMANA KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAd //TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

One CC to Sri RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate tOpUCI

¶36

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.[OUT]

¶37

Two CD Copies. Njb \ V

: I l

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410212023

"i k\ g STA rA
Co 2 5 ltAfl 2$8
_:.
I,
r ..-1

¶42

ORDER

¶43

CC.No.168 of 2023

¶44

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE.

Kurmula Chinna Linga Reddy v. Sri T. Vinay Krishna Reddy, I. a. S. , and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurmula Chinna Linga Reddy v. Sri T. Vinay Krishna Reddy, I. a. S. , and 2 others

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

M/s Shilpi Constructions and Developers,H.No 4-1-208, Vs The District Collector(Land Acquisition)

Paranda Ramaiah Vs The Joint Collector, Ranga Redy District

S. Nusayr Azam Vs The State of Telangana And 5 Others

Mrs. K. Nirmala W/o late Mr. K.v.S. Tirupati Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal

Rajendar Kumar jain Vs Sri Somesh Kumar

Kokkirala Narayana Rao Vs R.V Karnan and another