Contempt case filed for violation of status quo order. Court found no willful disobedience as respondent demoltished only illegally raised partition walls after petitioner violated order. Petitioner filed no reply. Contempt case dismissed and closed.
Contempt case closed. Respondent not held in contempt.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
I32s6 |
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2274 OF 2022
Contempt Case under Sections 10 lo 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971to punish the Respondent for wilfully and deliberately disobeying the Orders of the Court Order daled.29.O4.2O22 passed in W.P No.22680 of 2022
Between:
Mohd Azeem Rahman, Sio Mohammed Anees Rahman, Agedabout 35 years Occ Business, R/o H No. 9- 4-131/1 /N76/A,Vrrasath Nagar,Hyderabad, Telangiana State
J
AND
Sri Ramakrishna, Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, Hyderabad, Telangana State
RESPONDENT
lA NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, the High Court may bepleased to direct the Respondent to restore the structures of the Petitionersproperty house bearing H. No. 9- 4- 13111lNl 76/A, admeasuring 76 Sq.yards, in Sy. No. 148/2 Neeraja Colony, Virasath Nagar, Tolichowki, Hyderabad, Telangana State, and not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M A K MUKHEED
Counsel forthe Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLI SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHF)'Ii] KUMAR C ONTEMPT CASE No.2274 of 2(J22
ORDER:
This c:n e mllt, case is filed complainin6; vrol:riion of the ordcr passe<l r], this Court in W.P.No.226BC' of I C 2'2, datcd 29.O4.20i'2
{
2
and other encroachers to stop lhe construction activity. But, in spite of the same, the petitioner commenced the construction activity and as such the new constructlons were removed. The relevant portion reads as under:.
"... It is further submitted that, this respondent received a complaint from the iocality people that the petitioner herein is taking up construction activity over the Water Bed and upon receiving such complaint, this respondent herein instructed the Giridhawar of this office to stop the said i11ega_l construction activities in view of this Honble Court orders. Upon my instructions, the Giridhawar- along with local police rcquested the petrtioner herein not to take up any constmction activity over the water bed area and to abide with the Honble Court orders. But, without heeding to the instmctions of the Giridhawar and Police offrcials, the petitioner continued with constructing of partition walls over the edsting RCC Roof structure. It is to emphasize tJlat this Honble Court directed to maintain sta,t.rls quo, whereas the petitioner herein rnfringed the said interim orders by way of raising partition wall over the existing RCC structure. Hitherto, this respondent took immediate necessary steps and took up the demolition by removing the said illegally raised partition walls only raised thereon, but not to the existrng RCC structure )photos enclosed) duly adhering to this Honble Court orders ald to curb such illegal attempts being carried out by the petitioner herein and other encroachers."
\ \
matter()r) 2 .O4 .2023, directed the matter to lrc lisrted on 09.06.2023 f] -rzLlly for filing reply affidavit. Tocle.v rvhen the matter is l:akc r up, Iearned cour-rsel for the pet itiorLe r tnc e again sought tinte f( r filing reply. This Court is nor inclin,. d to grant further tinre a rc il'the petitioner is not agreed with ttre crntents of the cou:tt r affidavlt, he could have fiLtd repi g urffidavit immedialely a 'tc r receipr of the counter affidal it. Br t . in spite of granting sulfi 'ie nt time for filing reply affidauit, rlLe pe[itior-rer could not f:le r,:ply afhdavit and the conten,s ol' tl.e r:ountcr affidavit le rrLai re d uncontroverted.
Miscella recus Petitions, if any, pending in this co;-rtempt case shal. rstar I closed.
Srl/. l. l.lAGA LAKSHMI I)E:PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ( u.,
:;ECTION OFFICER
To,
--.F"
PR
HIGH COUR I'
MSK, J
DATED: 091CG12023
ORDER
CC.No.2274 ol'2022
. tl-'-^,,--4i r,, t^
3\i
i :',
i rr I i r\llB 2tr8 ,, 1
cr-
CLOSING TH E CC
&
1 issue framed by the court
Whether official's compliance in removal of partition walls, while petitioner infringed order by erecting walls, constitutes willful disobedience warranting contempt punishment.
MOHD AZEEM RAMHAN
SRI RAMAKRISHNA
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
