Smt Mahankala Shanthavva. Vs Sri Srinivas Reddy — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2025)

Smt Mahankala Shanthavva. Vs Sri Srinivas Reddy — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioners; the Contempt Case is closed with no order as to costs and no punishment imposed on the respondent; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent committed deliberate violation/wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 03.05.2024 passed in W.P.No.11831 of 2024, warranting punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Court's answer

This Court opines that there is no deliberate violation of the orders dated 03.05.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.11831 of 2024.

Ratio / Principle

The orders dated 03.05.2024 had been duly complied with: the petitioners' representations seeking implementation of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 26.07.2014 were duly considered and proceedings dated 13.08.2024 vide Intimation Letter No.B/649/2024 were issued to the petitioners; learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute this submission of the Assistant Government Pleader.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Surepalli Nanda, J. (High Court for the State of Telangana, 11.07.2025) in Contempt Case No.1141 of 2025, filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 by fourteen women agriculturists of Gudem Village, Bejjanki Mandal, Siddipet District, alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 03.05.2024 in W.P.No.11831 of 2024 directing respondent Nos.1 to 5 to consider their representations seeking implementation of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 26.07.2014 for allotment of land. The Court perused paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit: after subsequent enquiry the fourteen petitioners were found eligible and their names brought on record as pattedars, land under the Land Purchase Scheme through the S.C. Corporation having been got registered (though Mankali Kavitha and Mankali Pochamalu, though registered, were not recorded as pattedars); proceedings dated 13.08.2024 vide Intimation Letter No.B/649/2024 had been issued. Counsel for the petitioners did not dispute compliance. Finding no deliberate violation of the orders dated 03.05.2024, the Court closed the Contempt Case with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications also stood closed.

132521

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1141 OF 2025

Contempt Case filed Under Sections 1 0 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, '1971 to punish the respondents herein for deliberate violation and wilful disobedience of the Orders of the High Court dated 03.05.2024^passed in W.P.No^'1 1831 of 2024.

Between:

Smt Mahankala Shanthavva., Wo.Durgaiah, Age. 51 years, Occ. Agriculture, 2. Smt Mahankala Dheena,, Wo.Srinu, Age.33 years, Occ. Agriculure,

Smt.Mahankala Naveena,, Wo.Babu, Age. 28 years, Occ. Agriculture,

Smt Mahankala Gurawa,, Wo.Yellaiah, Age. 58 years, Occ. Agriculture,

Smt. Anasaram Yellavva,, Wo.Mallaiah, Age. 48^years, Occ. Agriculture,

Srrit- lti'lankala Shankarawa,, Wo.Rajaiah, Age. 51 years, Occ- Agriculture,

Smt. Mahankaka Renuka,, Wo-Mallesh, Age. 38 years, Occ. Agriculture,

B. Smt. Eravelli Anusha,, Wio.Sagar, Age. 28 years, Occ. Agriculture,

Smt. Mahankala Pochavva,, W/o.Rajaiah, Age. 45 years, Occ. Agriculture, '10.Smt. Mahankala Balavva,, Wo.Mathhadi, Age. 76 years, Occ. Agriculture, 'I 1. Smt. Anasaram Swapna,, Wo.Komuraiah, Age. 41 years, Occ. Agriculture, 12. Smt- Anasaram Komuravva,, Wo. Pochaiah, Age. 59 years, Occ. Agriculture. '13. Smt. Mahankala Lachavva,, Wo.Lachaiahc Age. 56 years, Occ. Agriculture,

'14. Smt. Mahanakal Yellawa,, Wo.Pochaiah, Age. 48 years, Occ. Agriculture, All are R/o.Gudem Village, Bejjanki Mandal, Siddipet District.

... Petitioner(s)

AND

Sri Srinivas Reddy,, S/o.not known Age. Major, Occ. Tahsildhar, Bejjanaki Mandal, Siddipet District.

... Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. K BUCHT BABU

Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following: ORDER

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

CONTEMPT CASE No.l141 OF 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri K. Buchi Babu, learned counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. D Haritha Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondent.

Complaining violation of the orders of this Court dated 03.05.2024 passed in W.P. No.11831 of 2024, the present Contempt Case is filed.

PERUSED T ER ECORD:-

A. Paraqraph No.S of the counter filed bv the on behalf of the sole respondent is extracted hereunder:

"In reply to the averments made in Para No.5 of the petitioner's affidavit, it is submitted that, during the process of selection of beneficiaries, no objections were received on the eligibility of the beneficiaries now pointed-out in the Writ Petition/Contempt Petition. The land purchased through Land Purchase Scheme through S.C. Corporation has been got registered in the name of the beneficiaries including the alleged ineligible beneficiaries, now pointed-out. After conduct of subsequent enquiry, except Mankali Kavitha,,Wo. Babu and Mankali Pochamallu, Wo. Durgaiah the others i.e., 1. Smt. Mahankala Shanthavva, Wo.Durgaiah, 2. Smt Mahankala Dheena, W/o. Srinu 3. Smt Mahankala Naveena, Wo. Babu 4. Smt. Mahankala Guravva, Wo.

r1

2

SN,J C.C.No.1141 2025

Yellaiah 5. Smt. Anasaram Yellavva, Wo. Mallaiah 6. Smt Mankala Shankaravva, W/o. Rajaiah^'7. Smt Mahankala Renuka, Wo. Mallesh B. Smt. Erravaelli Anusha, W/o. Sagar 9. Smt. Mahankala Pochavva, W/o. Rajaiah 10, Smt. Mahankala Balavva, Wo. Mathhadi 11. Smt. Anasaram Swapan, W/o. Komuraiah 12. Smt Anasaram Komuravva, Wo. Pochaiah 13. Smt Mahankala Lachavva, W/o. Lachaiah L4. Smt. Mahankala Yellavaa W/o. Pochaiah were found eligible and their names have been brought on record as pattedars. Though, the land was got registered in the name of Mankali Kavitha and Mankali Pochamalu but their names are not brought on record as pattedars."

B. The relevant oortion of order dated o3.05 .2024 oassed in W.P.No.11831 of 2024 is extracted

hereu nder:

"6. Taking into consideration the submission put forth by the learned counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.1 to 5 to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 72.72.2022, 08.O2.2024, 73.O2.2024 and 26.02.2024 seeking implementation of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 26.07.2Ot4, for allotment of land to the petitioners, in accordance to law, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, there shall be no order as to costs."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIoN:-

The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent herein placed reliance on the averments made in particular at para'5'of the counter affidavit (referred to and extracted above) and contends

r

3

SN,J C.C.No.1141 2025

I I

I t

that the orders^{passedby this Court had been duly complied} with and the representations^{dated12.t2'2022,} 08.02.2024, 13.02.2024^{and 26.O2.2O24 submittedby the} petitioners seeking implementation^{of G.O.Ms.No.1,dated} 26.07.2014 for allotment of^{land to the petitioners in} accordance with law^{had been duly consideredand} proceedings dated 13.O8.2024^{vide IntimationLetter} No.B/649/2024 had^{been issued to the petitioners'}

Learned counsel appearing^{on behalf of the} petitioners does not dispute the^{said submission} made by the learned^{Assistant Government Pleader} appearing on behalf of^{the respondent.}

Taking into consideration^{the specific averments} made at paragraph^{No.Sof the counter filed on behalf} of the respondent^{(referred to and extractedabove)} and duly considering the^{contents of letter of} intimation vide No.Bl649l2024^{datedL3.O8.2O24} issued by the respondent^{herein in compliance to the} orders of this Court^{dated O3.O5.2O24passedin} W.P.No.118gt ol 2024,^{this courtopines that there is}

4

sN,j C.C.No.1141 2025

I {

.t

no deliberate violation of the orders dated O3.O5.2O24

passed by this Court in W.P.No.1183L of 2O24.

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

SD/. K. AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

e-,,.

SECTION OFFICER

To,

21 9n" 99^{to SRr} GP FoR REVENUi,^{K BUCHTBABU} Advocate IOpUCIi;s#;i;ffi ,tJ;r?t'to state or rerangana 3 Two CD Copies

^RP/e6 ry,

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1110712025

ORDER

TAI r
(
rJU. T6 (i
1 U tt1
-4, /
1+ *r)
-{^/:}'
' in..-::: D t:: a f) r:'..: ,,,..," .'-. -,/'

CC.No.1141 of 2025

GLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS

t
\D
r1