Dismissed

Chintalapati Krishna Murthy and another v. Smt.Razia Sultana and 8 others

Telangana HC24 Mar 2023CC/800/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case, the High Court examined allegations of violation of status quo orders. Relying on photographs showing the land leveled and no active pits, the Court found no violation and closed the contempt proceedings without costs.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications declared closed.

Chintalapati Krishna Murthy and another Vs Smt.Razia… — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

|³²¹⁸ |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

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

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 800 OF 2019

¶7

Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondents herein for willfully and disobeying/deliberately/violating the Orders of the High Court dated 18-03-2011 in C.R.P.No.3635 of 2005.

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1. Chintalapati Krishna Murthy, S/o Late Sri Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about 86 years, Occupation Business, Resident of House No.5-3-357, Rashtrapaihi Road, Jeera, Secunderabad.

¶10

Chintalapati Venkata Rarnana, S/o Sri.Ch.Krishna Murthy, Aged about 56 years, Occupation Service, Resident of House No.5-3-357, Rashtrapathi Road, Jeera, Secunderabad.

¶11

...PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS

¶12

AND

¶13

1 Smt.Razia Sultana, Wo Sri.S.A.Hashmi, Aged about 90 years, Occupation l-Jouse-hold, FJo'l7 -8-31 4, Chauni Nade-E-Ali Baig, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad

¶14

Syed Yaseem Ali, S/o Sri.S.A.Hashmi, Aged about 69 years, Occp Business, Ryo 17-8-314, Chauni Nade-E-Ali Baig, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad

¶15

Smt.Rabia Sultana, D/o Sri.S.A.Hashmi, Aged about 59 years, Occupation House-hold, Ryo 17-8-314, Chauni Nade-E-Ali Baig, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad

¶16

Smt.Majeeda Sultana, D/o Sri.S.A. Hashmi, Aged about 49 years, Occupation House-hold, No 17-8-314, Chauni Nade-E-Ali Baig, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad

¶17

Smt.Ageela Sultana, D/o Sri.S.A.Hashmi, Aged about 47 years, Occupation House-hold, Rl/o 17-8-314, Qhauni Nade-E-Ali Baig, Yakuthpura, Hyderabad. (RR1 to 5, represented by their GPA RRG to 9)

¶18

Sri.Vinte Brahmananda Reddy, S/o Sri.V.Rami Reddy, Aged about 51 years, Occupation Business, No 201 , Vaishnavi Residency, Plot No.31 , Andhra Bank - Backside, Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, R.R.District

¶19

Sri.Matrigari Narayan Goud, S/o Sri.Lingamaiah Goud, Aged about 58 years, Occupation Business, Rlio H.No.23-5-12'1, Lal Darwaza Cross Road, Hyderabad

¶20

Sri.B.Venkatesh, S/o Sri.B.Krishna, Aged about 47 years, Occupation Busrness, R/o 1B-9-12'l , Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad

¶21

9, Sri.T.Koti Reddy, S/o Anjaneyulu, Aged about 51 years, Occupation Business, Rl/o Plot No.306. Lakshmikrishna Apartments, Kalyannagar, Hyderabad

¶22

...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P. BADRI PREMNATH

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI SHARAD SANTHI

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶28

C.C.No.8OO of 2Ol9

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The defendants have filed this contempt case under Sections 7O to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, l97l for committing willful and deliberate disobedience in implementing the orders dated 18.03.2011 passed by this Court in CRP No.3635 of 2OO5 arld to punish the plaintiffs accordingly alleging that the plaintiff No.1 has filed O.S.No.1447 of 2OO3 on the file of the IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in respect of plaint 'C' schedule property. The trial Court has granted injunction in respect of part of the property to the extent of Ac.O.29 guntas 1n Sy.No.358 of Chandanagar Village, Serilingampally Mandal. Against the said orders of the trial Court, the defendant No.l has filed CMA No.124 of 2004 before the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar ald obtained a status quo order.

,a.i:,

Page 2 of 6

AVR,.I CC No.800 ol 20l9

¶36

r.,--.ki

¶37

¶38

1. Further, aggrieved by the said statr-rs quo order the defendants have filed CRP No.3635 of 2005 before this Court wherein this Court while disposing of the CRP directed both the parties to maintain status quo and not to alienate the suit schedule property, not to make aly construction or create third party interest u,ith regard to suit properties. However, to the utter surprise of the defendalts, it was noticed that a board was displayed in the suit land as municipal plan was obtained vide file No.62IO5/22/O7 /20O3/HO and Permit No.5l7O7 /HOl WZlCir 12/2016, dated 25.06.2016 on this the 1.1 petitioner herein has got issued a notice dated 22.04.2019 for violation of the said orders but the notice was returned with the endorsement either 'incomplete address' or 'insufficient address'. Thereafter, he has filed WP No.45240 of 2OlB and the same is pending for filing counters by the GHMC. To his knowledge, on 10.10.2018 the plaintiffs started construction work in utter disobedience of the orders of this Court in CRP No.3635 of 2005.

¶39

PaBe 3 of 6

¶40

A/R.J CC No.1J0O of 20 l9

¶41

Notice served on the respondents/ plaintiffs. The 6th respondent has filed Memo dated 04.77.2022 z-long with photographs of the suit schedule site stating that there was no violation of any orders

¶42

At this stage it is apposite to refer to the proceedings dated 20.1O.2022, 02.11.2022 and 07.17.2022. As per the proceedings dated 20.10.2022 it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there was an understanding on behalf of the respondents to close the pits, however in view of continuous raining they have taken further time. Accordingly, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents submitted that they have complied the earlier instructions ald the pits were closed and requested for short time for making submissions on that aspect and also to produce the proof to that effect by way of frling the photographs. As such, the matter was adjourned to O2.1L2O22. That^on 02.11.2022 learned counsel for the respondents has furnished photographs of the suit site to the learned

:!j

Page 4 of 6

AVR,J CC No.800 ol 2O I9

¶49

counsel for the petitioners pursuant to the representation dated 2O.10.2022 shon'ing that the pits dug in the suit site u,ere closed. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has requested short time to confirm the said fact ald to make submissions. That on 07.11.2022 learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the instructions of his clients the pits were not closed and the respondents were misleading the Court

¶50

Be it stated that learned counsel for the respondents has filed the photographs a-long with Memo dated 04.11.2022, filed on 07.71.2022. These photographs were obtained on 11.10.2022. In a1l these photographs nowhere the pits were found, and the land appears to be leveled. Though the learned counsel for the contempt petitioners has argued that as per his instructions pits were not closed, he did not dispute the photographs filed by respondent No.6 and as per the said photographs no such pits were found in the suit site and the land was

¶51

leveled

¶52

Page 5 of 6

¶53

AVR,.J CC No.800 of 2019

t I

Perused the orders in CRP No.3635 ol 2005

¶59

wherein both the parties were directed^{not to makeanv} constructions or change the physical^{features ofthe} property pending disposal of the Original Suitⁱⁿ O.S.No.l447 of 2OO3 on the frle of learned II^Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy. Except making^allegations that some pits were dug and that the sign board^rn'as displayed as to obtaining the^. permission from^the municipality no further allegations are^{leveled againstthe} plaintiffs by the defendants. Therefore, in the above factual background considering the photographs filed by the 6th respondent on 07.1 1.2022 I do not find any^pits dug in the suit schedule property in violation of the status^quo orders and even if any pits were dug they were closed and there is no construction activit5r in progress. Therefore,ⁱⁿ the above factual matrix, considering the^proceedings dated 2O.10.2022, 02.11.2022 and 07.11.2022 I do^not find any violation of the orders in CRP^No.3635 of²⁰⁰⁵ and this contempt case is liable to be closed.

¶60

¶61

PdBe 6 of 6

¶62

AVR,.J CC No.800 of 20 19

¶63

¶64

In the result, for the reasons stated above, the

¶65

contempt case is closed as the contempt petitioners are not able to establish the violation of the orders of this Court dated 18.03.2011 passed in CRP No.3635 of 2005. However, in the circumstances of the case there shal1 be no order as to the costs

¶66

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any

¶67

pending in this contempt case, shall stand closed

¶68

¶69

//TRUE COPY//

¶70

Sd/.M.RAMANA^KRISHNA DEPUTY REGISTRAR Gfr

¶71

SECTION^OFFICER

¶72