Disposed

M.Satyanarayana Murthy v. D.Madhavi

Telangana HC5 Sept 2024CC/938/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This contempt case petitioned against disobedience of an order in a writ petition. The respondents filed affidavits explaining that the petitioner's subdivision request violated guidelines. The court closed the contempt case, granting liberty to approach the court against the challenged order.

What did the court decide?

Contempt case closed; liberty granted to petitioner to pursue remedies against the rejected subdivision order.

M.Satyanarayana Murthy Vs D.Madhavi — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t³²⁵²¹

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEI\4BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 938 OF 2024

¶7

Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act^'197'1 to punish the Respondents herein for willfull and deliberate disobedience of order dated. 12-07-2023 passed in WP No. 40222 of 2022.

¶8

Between:

¶9

[\I. Satyana rayana l\4urthy, S/o. tt4.Tata Rao Aged. 53 years, Occ. Business, Flat No, 504, SMR SKY City, Ramanthapur, Uppal [t/landal, Irledchal-tvlalkajigiri District.

¶10

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

D.Madhavi, Wo. Not Known to Petitioner (Zonal ltilangar. Occ) Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad.

¶13

f uVa Nayak, S/o. Not known to Petitioner (Commissioner.Occ) Telangana State lndustrial lnfrastructure Corporation Ltd IALA, Uppal, Hyderabad

¶14

.,.RESPONDENTS/CONTEMNORS

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M Atish Kumar

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri L Prabhakar Reddy SC FOR TSIIC

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶19

CONTEMPT CAS E No.938 OF 2024

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

Heard Sri M. Atish, learned counse! appearing on behalf of the the petitioner and Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶22

This Contempt Case is filed complaining violation of the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.40222 of 2023.

¶23

Counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of resDondent Nos, 1 and 2, Dara Nos. 5 to 9 of the dditional counter affidavit filed on behalf of resoondent Nos.1 and 2, reads as u nder

¶24

"5. It is submitted that the petitioner applications for Sub-Division were duly considered as per the orders oF this Hon'ble Court. As per the condition No.4 of the Circular No.198445/TSILC/LAC/2O14/241, dated 17.O9.2017 , the Sub-Division of the plots should be

¶25

¶26

cc 938 2024

¶27

done as per the norms of Dlrector of Town and Country Planning/Urban Development authority without disturbing the approved layout pattern of the industrial park.

¶28

-6. It is submitted that as per the guideline No.5 of the above revised guidelines, the plot area after subdivision "shall not be less than 450 Sq. Mtrs (minimum plot area)".

¶29

"7. In view of the above revised guidelines of the Corporation, the request of the petitioner for SubDivision of plotted area is coming to less than 450 Sq. Mtrs (which is the minimum plot area).

¶30

'4. It is submitted that the proposed Sub-division request of the petitioner would also cause damage to the existing lay out pattern of the Industrial Park which will be against the interest of the other allottees and also contrary to the guidelines".

¶31

*9. It is respectfully submitted that by duly taking into consideration of the above mentioned circumstances and facts, the request of the petitloner for Sub-Division of the plot was not possible to grant and the same was duly rejected by the order, dated 22.06.2024".

¶32

-) cC 9t8 2024

¶33

4, Taking into consideration the averments made in the additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 (referred to and extracted above), and duly taking note of the fact as borne on record that the application of the petitioner for Sub-Division of the plot was duly considered as per the order of this Court dated L2.O7.2O23 passed in W.P. No. 40222 ot 2022, the present Contempt Case is closed giving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedies as are available to the petitioner against the order dated 22.O6.2024, rejecting the petitioner's request for Sub Division of the plot. However, there

¶34

shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶36

closed.

¶37

Sd/- T. KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUTYqT EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶38

¶39

One CC to SRl. IVI ATISH KUIVIAR, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI L PRABHAKAR REDDY, SC FOR rsllc [OP|JC] Two CD Copies Cd//pr

,<lIt)

I I

HIGH COURT DATED:0510912024

¶45

' =='
l)
c''
I ii tjE] Ztr2q
0
n,'\ T t
!-.?

ORDER

CC.No.938 of 2024

CLOSTNG THE CC

-^r-0 l>('dl.e/^r X,&*

M.Satyanarayana Murthy v. D.Madhavi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Satyanarayana Murthy v. D.Madhavi

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

Raj Gonda Seva Samithi (Regd.) Vs The State of Telangana

S. Sreenivas Vs The Apsrtc

S.Sreenivas Vs TheAPSRTC.

Gogineni Rama Krishna, Vs The Ts Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

M/s. Shalivahana Electrical Engineering and Civil Works, Vs The Transmission Corporation of Telangana Ltd.

M/s Sri Venkateshwara Projects Vs The State of Telangana