Lanka Vinitha Vs Mr. Dara Prasad

¶1

[³³⁰³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO

¶6

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3029 OF 2025

¶7

Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act^1979, to punish the respondents herein for their willful violation and disobeying the orders dated 31-07-2024 in W.P.No. 33862 of 2018.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Lanka Vinitha, D/o Late Lanka Joga Rao, Age 64, Occ: House Wife,^{R/o H.No.} 21-1-53, Bapujinagar, New Palwancha, Bandradri Kothagudem^District

¶10

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Mr. Dara Prasad, Tahsildar, Palwancha Mandal, Bhadradri^{Kothagudem District.}

¶13

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Srikanth Chintala

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

/

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT TIYDERABAI)

¶19

THE HOI{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENWAS RAO

¶20

CONTEMPT CASE No.3O29 of2025

Date: 06.O2.2026

Between:

Lanka Vinitha

.. . Petitioner/ Petitioner

¶25

AND

¶26

Mr. Dara Prasad

¶27

. . Respondent/ Respondent

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This contempt case has been filed to punish the respondent_ contemnor for non-implementation of the orders passed by this court, dated 31.07.2024 in w.P- No.33862 of 2org invoking the provisions under Sections 10 to l2 ol the Contempt ofCourts Act, 1971.

¶30

\

¶31

When this matter was taken up for hearing on 30.01.2026, Ms.D.Harita Kiran, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent-contemnor, submitted that respondent-contemnor had complied the order passed by this Court and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, issued proceedings uide Rc.No.F 1438112024, dated 16.t2.2O24. The copy of the proceedings is enclosed along with the counter afhdavit, filed on 04.12.2025 uide USR No.i40432 of 2025. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that she has served a copy of the counter on the Iearned counsel for the petitioner. On that day, no

¶32

2

¶33

representation on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, to give one opportunity, the matter was postid to 06.02.2026.

¶34

3 Today also, there is no representation on behalf of t1le petitioner either physical mode or virtual mode.

¶35

By virtue of the compliance of the orders passed by this Court dated' this court is of the considered view trrat no further.adjudication is required in the contempt case.

¶36

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to avail remedies as ava*abre under the law including questioning the proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, if so aggrieved.

¶37

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶38

Sd/. V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTR

//TRUE COPY//

CTION OFFICER

To