Disposed

Mohd. Abdul Majeed, v. Sri Kishan Rao

Telangana HC28 Dec 2023CC/2190/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge, High Court of Telangana, in a contempt case regarding disobedience of a previous order, found that the petitioner was informed the survey could not be conducted. Consequently, no further adjudication was required, and the contempt case was closed granting liberty to pursue other legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

The Contempt Case is closed. Petitioner is granted liberty to avail the remedies as available under law.

Mohd. Abdul Majeed, Vs Sri Kishan Rao — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD^"'-..'"

¶2

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THR_EE-_^''--"

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶5

ON MPT C ENO:2 90 F20 4

¶6

Contempt case filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to punish the r".o9rdgn] rrerein toi^'l"iii"-r"," vioration and wiilfur disobedience of the order dateo zo-a-)oi+'p".#'i"'w" No.22908 of 2014 ot this Hon'ble High Court.

¶7

Between:

¶8

x."l"1#'#1,Y?1ft310 ?l:.,|!1",11333fh.,!!I3il,Ti;*Hll,,i"',iiL,,f J8?,lli o""

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

illS"ij,Bl"B3iAssistant^{Director, Surveyand Land Records, Nizamabad,}

¶12

...Respondent.

¶13

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri. A.Jagan, Advocate

¶14

Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶15

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶16

HON'BLE SRI JI'STICE J. SREENTVAS RAO

¶17

CONTEMPT CASE No. 2190 of2Ol4

¶18

ORDER;

¶19

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Assistant^(iovernment Pleader for Revenue basing on the instructions furnished by the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Nizambad submits that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court dated 26.t)8.2014, the respondents issued proceedings vide File No.A3/841 /20 14, dated 08.72.2014 informing the petitioner that due to the rea:,ons mentioned in the said memo, the survey could not be conducted in the said land and copy of the said proceedings were communic eted to the petitioner.

¶20

In view ofthe above, no further adjudication is required.

¶21

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, the

¶22

petitioner is granted liberty to avail the remedies as available under law.

¶23

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶24

closed.

¶25

SD/. CH.VENKATESWARLU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

¶26

//TRUE COPY//

¶27

SECTION OFFICER

¶28

To, 1. Two CCs to G.P. for Revenue,^{High Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hyderatrad [OUT]

¶29

One CC to SRl. A.JAGAN Advocate [OPUC]

¶30

3- Two CD copies.

cvk NS 4^{C

HIGH CIf,URT

DATED:2811212023

ORDER

g( l Eta
2.
C) t'.\ v
4J ..,.*
C
..e (rJ
uo
+
c Hgls *

¶37

CC.No.2190 of 2014

¶38

CC is Closed.

¶39

f,,L01" TAil*.

Mohd. Abdul Majeed, v. Sri Kishan Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Abdul Majeed, v. Sri Kishan Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. D. Rajeshwari Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Vallemchetla Krishnaiah, S/0. Late Hanumaiah, Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Kodoor Ram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

M.Pallavi, Vs Sri.J.T.Amarnath

Sri. Tatiparthi John Prakash, Vs Ms. Chandrakala

Kurma Bheemaiah Vs Mrs. Ayesha Namrath Khan