Disposed

Gangireddy Shankar Reddy v. Dr. Harish

Telangana HC11 Apr 2025CC/2077/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contempt proceedings for alleged non-compliance with an earlier High Court order directing consideration of a land record grievance with a personal hearing. Finding no personal hearing was afforded before rejection, the Court permitted a fresh application and directed decision within four weeks, closing the contempt case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make a fresh application on Dharani Portal enclosing all documents; respondents directed to examine and pass appropriate orders within four weeks and communicate them; contempt

Gangireddy Shankar Reddy Vs Dr. Harish — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2077 OF 2023

¶7

Contempt case filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent herein for willfully and wantonly disobeying the orders of the High Court dated 06-09-2022 passed in W.P. No.34878 of 2022. Between:

¶8

Gangireddy Shankal Reddy, S/o Late Ram Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Agriculture, Ryo Flat No. 403, CNR Residency, Nagarjuna C6lony, Champapet, Hyderabad - 500 079.

¶9

-.Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

Dr. Harish, S/o Not known District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

Shri Ravinder Duth, S/o Not known, The Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. V V Narasimha Rao

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents : GP For Revenue

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶18

CONTEMFT CASE No.2O77 of2023

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

This contempt case is liled alleging violation of the order datecl 06.O9.2O2O passed by this Court in W.P.No.3487B ol 2O22.

¶21

Vide order dated O6.O9.2020 in W.P.No.34878 of 2022, this Court directed the respondents to consider the online application bearing No.220O101264, dated 05.O9.2022 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and afford an opportunity of personal hearing to all the persons interested. The said order has not been complied with, therefore, the present Contempt Case was liled.

¶22

After receipt of case papers, counter and additional counters are filed by respondent No.2. It is stated in the additional counter affrdavit that during the tenure of re$ffident No.2 in compliance with the orders passed by this Court, basing on the merits ald after examination of the

documents, respondent No.2 has submitted detailed report to respondent No.1 for missing survey number in respect of the subject land through Dharani Porta-l vide Grievance No.22O0101264, dated O5.O9.2O22. It is further stated that taking into consideration of the said report, respondent No.1 has rejected the said application and the same was visible in Dharani Portal.

¶27

Reading of the counter affidavit would reveal that the respondents have not implemented the order as directed by this Court. Since there is no whisper about the affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before taking any decision on the application being submitted by him, the ends of^justice would be met, if the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh application in Dharani Porta-l duly enclosing all the documents. In the event of submission of such application, the respondents are directed to examine the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the said application and communicate the copy of the same to the petitioner.

¶28

¶29

¶30

With the above^{observations, this Contempt Case is}

¶31

closed.

¶32

Miscellaneous petitions,^{if anypending inthis}

¶33

Contempt Case^{shall stand closed.}

¶34

Sd/-I. NAGA^LAKSHMI OINl'REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER

¶35

To,

¶36

Dr.^{Harish,District Collector, Ranga ReddyDistrict'} ,. ;;ri ili";;r-Duth,^{S/o Notknoiln,TheTahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar'} -' Abdullrprt.et Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' g. ine oisirict Collector' Ranga^{ReddyDistrict} .. 4. The Tahsildar^{and JointSiU-i"giti'"', Abdullapurmet Mandal' Ranga Reddy} District.

¶37

s. on"^{cC to Sri. V V Narasimha Rao, Advocate [OPUC]} 6. f*" CC.^{t" GP FORREVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana'} IOUI 7. Two^{CD CoPies} DL

HIGH COURT

DAIED:111O412025

ORDER

CC.No.2077 of²⁰²³

E Sl A re.
1
t
lt
j o1 rN 2m5 ,)2o
li
a
t DEs?rJc .ar6

¶46

CLOSING THE C^C,

¶47

@
<br>

Gangireddy Shankar Reddy v. Dr. Harish

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangireddy Shankar Reddy v. Dr. Harish

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

K.Vishwadeep Vs Shri Manoj Ahuja, IAS

Khasim Sab Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Bheema Sudhakar Vs The State of Telangana

Bmr Enclave Residents Welfare Assn Vs The State of Telangana

Perli Yebu Vs The State of Telangana

D. Ramulu Vs a. Krishna Prasad, Ces