Disposed

Obaid Ur Rehman v. M. Dana Kishore, IAS

Telangana HC9 Sept 2024CC/1185/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Contempt Case No. 1185 of 2024, the petitioner alleged that respondents failed to comply with a High Court order to disburse compensation and make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Upon verifying that the amount had been disbursed, the court closed the contempt case.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed with no order as to costs; petitioner to agitate grievance on interest appropriately.

Obaid Ur Rehman Vs M. Dana Kishore, IAS — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32S6 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEI'BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BI{ASKAR REDDY

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1185 OF 2024

¶7

contempt case fired Under sections10 to 12 0f contempt of courts Act, 1?7.1 \o^{punishthe respondentfor his wirfur and deriberate} viorating the orders of the High Court dated 06.10.2023 passed in W.p. No. eZiS ot ZO..Z.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Obaid Ur Rehman. son of .the late Dr.Shah Nawaz, aged about 67 vears occupation. Business. resident oi H.r.ro.ile-sii"to' r-E+ai-""0 "i alE6b] Pattigadda Road, Begumpet, SecunderabaO.^{- -''}

¶10

... Petitioner/Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

M.Dana Kishore. lAS. son of not known to petitioner, the principal Secretary, Rural and Urban Deverooment oepirtmeni, 5iriu'Ji'r"rungana, secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 D.Ronald Rose. lAS. son of not known to petitioner, the Commissioner, creater Hyderabad Municipat Coipoi"iit", iiiiil iirho Road, Hyderabad

¶14

J V.La.kshmi. Narayana, son of not known to petitioner, Special Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition officer, Greater HvoerJoJo irr,.inr-"iprr corp6iild;,'i;il Bund Road, Hyderabad

¶15

...Respondents/Contemnors

¶16

Counsel for the^petitioners : Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1

¶18

Counsel for the Respohdent No.2 : Sri K.Siddarth Rao

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Sri K.Ravinder Reddy SC for GHMC The Court made the following : ORDER

I I

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V.BHASKARREDDY}

¶24

CONTEMPT CASE No.1185 of2024

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Contempt Case is filed alleging non-compliarrce of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.8335 ot 2017, dated 06.ro.2023.

¶27

This Court, uide order, dated 06. 1O.2O23, while disposing of the said writ petition, directed respondent No.3 to disburse the compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner i.e., Rs.52,65,822/- in respect of the subject property within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. As the petitioner stated that he is not satisfied wilh the said amount of compensation awarded, this Court further directed respondent No.3 to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") r.o the Civil Court concerned for considering the claim of the petitioner for enhancement of compensation, within a further per: od of four weeks from the date of payment of compensation 1o the petitioner.

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is that even after a sprecific direction to the respondents to disburse the amount within a

¶29

¶30

CVBR, J cr ll85 2024

¶31

period of two months from the date of the^{order and to make} reference under Section 18 of the^{Act within a periodof four} months, the respondents have not^{compliedwith the said order} within the prescribed time. It is stated that^{the said amount} has been paid by the respondents^{with inordinatedelayand} therefore, the petitioner is entitled^{to the interestpayablefor the} delayed payment.

¶32

A counter affidavit has been filed by^{respondentNo.3} stating that in compliance with^{the orders passed by this Court,} the respondents have released the^{amountand the cheque has} been disbursed in the name of the^petitioner.

¶33

In view of compliance of the order of^{this Court, the} Contempt Case is closed as no further^{orders are necessary,} and it is left open to the^{petitioner to agitate his grievancebefore} the appropriate Court with regard^{to the interest on the delayed} payment of compensation. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall^{stand closed}

¶35

Sd/- M. RAMANA^KRISHNA DEPU REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to Sri^{ZeeshanAdnan Mahmood,Advocate} [OPUCI

¶41

One CC to SRI Sri K.siddarth^{Rao, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶42

One CC^{to Sri K.Ravinder Reddy SC for GHtttlC,} IOPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies

Svs/gh

HIGH COURT

DATED:0910912024

ORDER

CC.No.1185 of 2024

l,'- ! f, tl ltii ,l'1
, i
\ ''z
\.n ,-, ;
\ :',( / .;rrrr,.:.i(
.a:=_-,-

¶51

CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE q)(ePiei' $, t1 IrcW

Obaid Ur Rehman v. M. Dana Kishore, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Obaid Ur Rehman v. M. Dana Kishore, IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thangeda Suramma, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt.Ranaveni Vanitha Vs Sri. Ramakrishna

Kotagiri Usha Rani Vs Sri. Kasi Reddy

Sultan Ul Uloom Education Society and 2 others Vs The Pharmacy Council of India,and another

M/ s Skr Constructions Vs The State of Telangana

Fakruddin M.Khambaty Vs Union of India., rep.by its Secretary,Ministry of Railways