Disposed¶32

Ballem Venkateswarlu v. Smt. Bhukya Aruna

Telangana HC23 Jul 2025CC/465/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court closes contempt case; Sections 10-12 Contempt of Courts Act; directions dated 03-12-2024 in W.P. No. 31307 of 2024 on illegal construction by 6th respondent; respondent Secretary, Danthelabora S.C. Grampanchayat; notices 27-01-2025; proceedings dt.03.02.2025; compliance with delay, not non-compliance; parties own brothers, 20-year land dispute; non-tribals; Survey Nos. 242-243 under Act 1/70 of Agency Area; no construction permission; parties directed to civil/Agency Court; aggrieved parties free to challenge proceedings; Contempt Case closed at this stage; Justice T. Madhavi Devi.

What did the court decide?

Since the respondent issued notices to both the parties and issued proceedings dated 03.02.2025 pursuant to the Court's directions, this is not a case of non-compliance but a case of compliance with delay.

Ballem Venkateswarlu Vs Smt. Bhukya Aruna — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent/contemnor (Secretary, Danthelabora S.C. Grampanchayat) wilfully disobeyed or failed to comply with the directions of this Court dated 03-12-2024 passed in W.P. No. 31307 of 2024, warranting punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act (Sections 10 to 12). +1 more

¶20

Ratio / Principle

¶30

Key takeaways

If either the writ petitioner or the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition is aggrieved by the proceedings dated 03.02.2025, that party may challenge the said proceedings.obiter¶30
The Contempt Case is accordingly closed (closed at this stage).ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil contempt — Contempt Case No. 465 of 2025 (Telangana HC, 23-07-2025, Justice T. Madhavi Devi), filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging wilful disobedience of the directions dated 03-12-2024 in W.P. No. 31307 of 2024 (take action against the illegal construction by the 6th respondent after notice and hearing, within four weeks). The respondent/contemnor (Secretary, Danthelabora S.C. Grampanchayat) countered that she issued notices on 27-01-2025 to the writ petitioner and the 6th respondent seeking ownership/title documents (which neither furnished), made a field enquiry recording that the parties are own brothers with a ~20-year pending dispute, are non-tribals, that the land in Survey Nos.242 and 243 falls under Act 1/70 of Agency Area with no construction permission accorded to the 6th respondent, advised both parties to stop further construction and approach the competent civil Court/Agency Court, and issued proceedings dt.03.02.2025. Held: issuance of the notices and proceedings dt.03.02.2025 amounts to compliance with delay, not non-compliance; aggrieved parties may challenge the proceedings dt.03.02.2025; the Contempt Case is accordingly closed.

¶1

[^321s I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 465 OF 2025

¶7

Contempt Case filed under Sections 1O to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the Respondents for willfully violating /disobeying the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 03-12-2024 in W. P. No. 3 1 307 of 2024.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ballem Venkateswarlu, S/o. Late Dharmalah, Aged 64 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. SC Colony, Danthelabora village, Paloncha Mandal, BhadradriKothagudem dist.ict

¶10

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Smt. Bhukya Aruna, Secretary, Danthelabora S.C. Grampanchayat, Paloncha Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem

¶13

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.5

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl PULLA RAO YELLANKI

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent : PRADEEP REDOY KATTA (SC FOR TG ZILLA PARTSHAD)

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTTCE T. MAT}HA'I DEVI

¶18

CONTEMPT CASE NO.465 OF 2O2i;

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Alleging wilful disobedience and non-cornphance with the directions of this Court dt.03.02.2024 passed in W.P.N,:.31307 of 2024, this Contempt Case is filed.

¶21

The direction cf this Court 'was to take action against the iltegai construction beurg rnade by the 61h respondent in the \rrit Petilic;r after issuing notice to the 66 responclent an.J giving an opporlunity of hearing to the ivrit petitioner as u,ell as the 6d'respondent and the entire excrcise rvas directed to be completed rvithin a period of four u.eeks hom the Cete of rcceipt of a copy of flie order.^'lhe orCer^.aras passed on 03.12.2A24 in V/.PNo.31307 of 2024 and this Conternpt. Case is hleC alleging ina.ction on the part of tlie iespondents ir taking an1, aslisn against the alleged illegal construction ofthe 6'h respondent.

¶22

The respcndent/confeinnoi iras fileci a couilte,' afliCavit stating lhat lrursuant to the final ordels of this Coult dt.03.12.2024, tire cciltomrrol has issued notice tc the q,r'it petitioner as rvell as the 6'h

¶23

C.C.l.No.465 of 2025

¶24

¶25

respondent in the Writ Petition on 27 .01.2025 requesting them to submit the documents showing their orvnership and other relevant documents, but both the writ petitioner and the 6r' respondent have failed to fumish title documents. It is submitted that a field enquiry with neighbours was rnade thereafter and the neighbours informed that the writ petitioner and the 6th respondent are own brothers and the dispute with regard to the subject land is pending between them for the last 20 yeals. It was also observed that thelwrit petitioner and the 6'h respondent are non-tribals and the land in question in Survey Nos.242 and243 lalls under Act 1/70 of Agency Area and that no constnrction permission is accorded to the 6th respondent. Therefore, the respondent/contemnor advised both the writ petitioner as well as the 6th respondent not to proceed with any lurther construction and approach the competent civil Court/Agency Court for redressal of their grievance. It is submitted that since the respondent/contemnor has followed the directions ol this Court, there is no non-compliance on their part. Copies of the notices issued by the respondent/contemnor are also filed along with the counter affidavit

¶26

Though the leamed counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the directions of this Court have not been complied with by the respondent/contemnor, this Court finds that the respondent has issued

C.C.N,r 465 of 2025

notices to both the parties and has issued the proceedings d1.03.02.2025. Therefore, it is not a case of non-compliance, but is a case of compliance with delay. If either of the parties, i.e., the writ petitioner and the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition are aggrieved, they nray challenge tlre said proceedings dt.03.02.2025. This Court is therefore

¶31

inclined to close thc Conternpt Case at Cris stage.

¶32