Dismissed

Chepuri Sudershan v. C.Narayana Reddy

Telangana HC12 Dec 2025CC/3169/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt case filed in W.P. No. 13815 of 2025, the High Court examined whether revenue officials avoided compliance with an order to expedite pattadar passbook issuance under the Bhulekh Bill Act. Finding that the delay arose from procedural difficulties serving notices to absent landholders rather than willful refusal, the court dismissed the contempt allegations.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case filed against the respondents was closed without punishment.

Chepuri Sudershan Vs C.Narayana Reddy — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32s61

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY}

¶6

CONTEMPT^{CASE NO:316I OF 2025}

¶7

Contempt case^{filed underSections10& 12 of Contempt of CourtsAct to} prni"t in" respondents^{herein for willfullyand disobeying /deliberately} iiffrtl"g the Lrders^{of the High Court dated01-05-2025 passedin} W.P No.13815^{ot 2025}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Cheouri Sudershan,^{S/o' Late Vishwanatham,Aged about 72 Years,. occ:} ffififfi. ffi"Ii^{ilo- 7 +-zite4, ffik;;Naga'.SasarRoad,Bairamalsuda,} LE.Nagar, Ranga^{ReddY Distnct.}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 C.Naravana Reddy,^{S/oNotknown Aged about 45 Years Occ District} E,iri.tl6.'ori 1r,.'oi.tii"t c;ii;;i"t^{RingaReddv,Ranga Reddv District'}

¶13

2 Anantha Venkat^{Reddy, S/o. Not known,Aged about 51 Years' Occ R D O'} o/;' il; ri;;;;;"^{oiriionar oniter,I bran iripatnamDivision' Ranga Reddv} District.

¶14

J Vinav Saqar. S/o.^{Not KnownAgedabout48 Years' Occ Tahsildar' O/o the} Tahs'ildar; Madugula^{Mandal Ranga Reddy urstrrct'}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS/CONTEMNORS

¶16

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRl'RAPOLUBHASKAR}

¶17

Counsel for the^{Respondents:AGP FOR REVENUE}

¶18

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶19

9-.#i*:--

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI,/ .NGANA AT TTYDERABAD

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BTIASKAR 1T }DDY

¶22

CONTEMPT cAsE No.3169 of 2025

DATE : 12.12.2025

Between:

Chepuri Sudershan

Pel itioner

AND

C. Narayana Redd1,, and two others

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Respor:r ( I ts/'Contemnors

¶31

This Conternpt Case is l'ilccl to summon i L rl punish the respondents alleging willful and deliberate violatror of the orders dated 01.05.2025 passed by this Cour[ in Writ periri n No.138 I5 of 2025.

¶32

This Court uide order dated 0I.05.202r clisposed of W.P.No 138 15 ot2O25, with the iollor.ving dircctions:

¶33

"9 In weu.' of the qbove subntrssions, tltis (:ourt [s oj te opinrctl that the ends of justice woulcl ba nrcl tf the petihone,' : peti,titted. to. make a fresh applicatrcn un(1er the provisions ., th. Bhu Bharqtt Act and the Rules mad_e thereunder and n lL : evenf o1 such app[tccttion being submitted bg the petittoner, the t ,spondeit authoities shall consider the_ case of the petitrcner for tL rlctton of the reuenue enties qnd .on""qu.ritiol iisuance of ,t e amended pattadar pcssbook. In anV euent, if the petiiron t has not co-nLplie.s with the requirentents of tLLe provisions ,), the Bhu Bharati Act and the Rules made ih.r"uid"r, por" ., ,eoron"d order and communicate the reasons thereon b lhe p<,t t ,nir. fn entire exercise sLnll be completed u.tithin a period o. .lvee (03) months from the date of recetpt of a copy of this order ;

¶34

CHADA vrr/\ A ilxi'llffiliii#j,3i^ EHAsKAR R: )DY^{oare2025r 2 r s1426oo} r0r,lo.

¶35

¶36

The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revcnue,

¶37

appearing for the respondcnts, on written instrucLions, q/ould submit that the petitioner served a copy ol the order dated 01.O5.2025 on 19.O5.2O25 through a coverinq lettcr but dicl not applv through the Bhu Bharati Portal as directcd. Upon receipt of the representation, the petitioner was adviscd to apply online through the Bhu Bharati Portal for correction of revenue entries and issuance of pattadar passbook. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an onlinc application under the "Missing Survcl' Nurnbers" module secking muta[ion of his name [o an extent ol Ac.0.3(r gur]tas in Survcy No.688 of Madgul Village and Mandal, Rarrgarecldv Distric:t, vidc Application No.2500029799, dated 16.05.2025. It is fur[hcr submitted that in compliance with the directions of this Court, tl-rc said application was taken up for verificalion with the available records. On verihcation, it was found that Survey No.688 total admeasuring Ac.12.38 guntas, classified as patta land, and thc entirc extent stands recorded in the names of twelve individuals in thc Bhu Bharati Portal. It is stated that there is no fcasibilit-v to eflect cxtent correction or entry in favour of the petitioner unless corrcsponding reduction or deduction is made from the holdings of the recorded pattadars. It is further submitted that, in accordance with the proccdure^prescribed under the Bhu Bharati Act and the Rules made thcreunder,^noticeswere issued to the concerned rccorded iI'rdividuals calling upon^{them to}

¶38

D'd rllv^(idned bv( HADA CHADA VIJAYA,'irrrnr.risr.rnirroor BHASKAR REDDy^{o;rF-2or5.12.rsr4 2o!6}

¶39

¶40

produce documentary evidence in respect of lands tr Survey No.6gg of Madgul Village and Mandal, Rangareddy Distrr.: . Howeve r, the notices could nol be served personaily as the pa I rdars were not residing in the village, and thereflore service was r i]'ected through WhatsApp. Despite such service, none of tht_, plr,t rclars appeared bclorc the olficc or submitted documentan- r.vidence, and consequently, the inquiry could not be conclt < r,d r.vithin thc stipulated time, The respondents sought a sh, r I extension to complete the inquiry and pass appropriate orders in rccordanoc with Iart.

¶41

Having regard to the above submissions i r tl t hc mirterial placed on record, this Court is o[ tl-re vieri. thal ncr -.rse is maclc out to I'rold that the respondents have u illfully or dclibt:r I i:iy t,iolatcd thc orders o[ this Court so as to attracl the provisions t- Ite Oontempt ol CoLlrts Act, 1971.

¶42

Accordir-rgl1,, this Contempt Case is closed

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand clcs .d

¶44

SD/. K.AMMAJI I] :PUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

I I

To,

1 C.Narayana Reddy, S/o. Not known Aged about 45 Yea r ; Occ District Collector, O/o. the District Collector, Ranga Reddy, Rarl a Reddy District.

¶50

¶51

2 Anantha Venkat Reddy, S/o. Not known, Aged about 5-^/ears, Occ: R.D.O.;.: O/o. the Revenue Divisional Officer, lbrahimpatnam D vir ion, Ranga Reddy District.

¶52

J Vinay Sagar, S/o- Not Known, Aged about 48 Years, Or:r . Tahsildar, O/o. the Tahsildar, Madugula Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶53

;-:i-i*I

¶54

¶55

One CC to SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR .Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High^{Courtfor the State of Telangana} louTl

¶57

{ 6. Two CD Copies { I{M/PSIy,

HIGH COURT

DATED:1211212025

<br>

ORDER

CC.No.3'169 ot 2025

1
Y Or. .h);.<br>o.)
'() It <br>(t r I I 202ri '('.-('t,z
.rJ, {
% i
*-{'
." r -ATC

¶65

CLOSING OF THE CONTEMPT CASE

¶66

^bnJ
bp

Chepuri Sudershan v. C.Narayana Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chepuri Sudershan v. C.Narayana Reddy

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

Thodengala Ramnarsaiah Vs Godugu Narender

The Manager, Vs Smt. M. Hamsamma

D Bheeramma Vs T Ravi

Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Bela Venkatesham

Sri. Mulla Dawood Vs Mr. B.M. Santhosh IAS

Mohd.Mujafar, Vs a.Ramesh