Telangana High Court
CC/630/2011 of Ramchander singh (died) Vs Sri Natrajan Gulzar, on 29 December 2023
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 630 OF 2011 Between: 1. Ramchander singh (died), 2. Br'rj Raj singh, S/o Kishan singh, Business 3. Yathender
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR [THE ][STATE ][OF ][TELANGANA]AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY THE TWENTY NINTH [DAY OF DECEMBER]TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY [THREE]
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE [J ][SREENIVAS ][RAO]
CONTEMPT CASE [NO: 630 OF 2011]
Between:
1. Ramchander singh [(died),]
2. Br'rj Raj singh, S/o [Kishan singh, Business]
3. Yathender singh, s/o Bharath [Singh Business]
4. Jaipal Singh, S/o Bharath [Singh Business]
5. Yashpal Singh, Bharath [Singh Business]
6. Puran singh, S/o Shanker [Singh]
7. Kishan Singh,, S/o Shankar Singh [Business]
B. Kapil Singh, S/o Shankar Singh [Business]
9. Suraj singh, S/o Shankar Singh [Business (All the above petitioners]are the residents of H.NO.12-1-346, [Asifnagar, ][Hyderabad)]...PETITIONERSare the residents of H.NO.12-1-346, [Asifnagar, ][Hyderabad)]...PETITIONERS
AND
1. Sri Natrajan Gulzar,, District Collector, Hyderabad [District,]Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.
2. Smt. K. Chandrakala, Mandal Revenue Officer [(Tahsildar),]Asifnagar Mandal, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.Asifnagar Mandal, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.
3. Sri tvl. Jagdishwar,, Managing Director, Hyderabad MetropolitanWater and Sewerage Board, (HMWS and SB), Khairtabad,HyderabadWater and Sewerage Board, (HMWS and SB), Khairtabad,Hyderabad
...RESPONDENTS
Petition filed under Sections [10 ]to [12 ][of ][Contempt ][of ][Courts Act]1971 lo [punish ]the [Respondents ][No.1 ][to ][3 ][for ][the ][deliberate ][and]intentional [violation ][of ][the ][orders ][dated ]['l ][7-1 ][1-2008 ][in ][WPMP ][No.]17085 of [2OO7 ]in [W.P.No.13621l2OO7 ][passed ][by ][this ][Honble ][High]Cou rt
l.A. NO: 1OF 2011[(APPL. ][NO:453][ oF ][2011)]
Petition under Section ['l ]51 CPC [praying ][that ][in ][the]
circumstances [stated in the affidavit ][filed ][in ][support of ][the ][petition, ][the]High Court may be [pleased ][The ][Hon'ble ][Court may ][be ][pleased ][to]direct the [respondents ][not ][to ][proceed ][with ][the ][work ][of ][laying ][the]and construction of water tank [over ][the ][land and ][hillock]passage belonging to the [petitioners covered ][by ][Sy.No.S/1 ],512,611 '7,911 [&]9/2 totally [admeasuring ][Ac.46-25 ][Gts., ][situated ][at ][Razdarkhanpet]Village, Asifnagar [[Vlandal, ][Hyderabad ][District ][during ][the ][pendency ][of]the contempt [case ][and ][to ][pass such other order ][or ][orders ][as ][this]Hon'ble Court may [deem ]fit [and proper ][in the ][circumstances ][of ][the]case.
l.A. NO:'l OF 2012[(APPL. ]NO: 191 oF 20121
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ]theHigh Court may be [pleased ]lt is therefore [prayed ]that, this Hon'bleCourt may be [pleased ]to direct the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, atHyderabad to record the cross examination of the Respondent No.2,on behalf of the counsel for [petitioners ]on the counter affidavit filed by2nd Respondent in CC.No.63012011, by receiving the documents filedin the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRl. MD. AJMAL AHMED, ADVOCATEFORSRI.MABARI
Counsel for the Respondent 1 AND 2: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI T. SUDHffi REDDY
The Court made the following: ORDER
t ',+,. [.: ]li;r
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAOCONTEMPT CASE No.630 of 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed invoking the [provisions ][under]Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to [punish ]therespohdents for gross violation of the orders [passed ]by this [Court in]wPo.17085 of 2007 in W.P.No.1362l of [2007, ][dated]t7.tI12008.[1"*]
2. Heard Sri Md.Ajmal Ahmed, learned counselrepresenting Sri M.A.Bari, learned counsel for [the ][petitioners;]learned Assistant Government Pleader'lor Revenue appearing onbehalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned standing [Counsel]appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that therespondents violated the status-quo order granted by this court [in]W.P.M.P.No.l7085 of 2007 in W.P.No. 13621 of [2007, ][dated]I7.l1.2008 and they are liable for prosecution under the [provisions]of Contempt of Courts Act.
4. Per contra,learned Standing Counsel submits that the matnrit Petition vide W.P.No.1362l of 2007 was dismissed fornon-secution on 04.08.2010 and the interim order granted bythisourt on 17.1 1.2008 was merged in the dismissal order.Subsequently, the petitioners filed restoration application seekingto restore the Writ Petition along with the condition of delayapplication and the said applications were allowed.Subsequently, the petitioners filed restoration application seekingto restore the Writ Petition along with the condition of delayapplication and the said applications were allowed.
5. Further, learned Standing Counsel basing on thewritten instructions submits that respondent Nos.l and 2 handedovere possession of the subject property to respondent No.3 on01 .01 2011 i.e., after dismissal of the main Writ Petition and thequestlon of violation of the orders granted by this Court inW.P.M.P.No.l7085 of 2007 in W.P.No.1362l of 2007. dated17. I I .2008 does not arise.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available onrecord, it clearly reveals that this Court on 17. 11.2008 inW.P.M.P.No. 17085 of 2007 in W.P.No. 13621 of 2007 directed theIpartrdsto maintain status-quo and stated that this order however shall not preclude the Government fiom acquiring any part ofpetitioner's land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act,1905 and/or the provisions of the Hyderabad Metropolitan WaterSupply and Sewerage Act, 1989. It is very much relevant to placeionrebord that the possession of the subject property was handedou", Lrespondent No.3 on 01.01.2011 by respondent Nos.l and 2;ASonthat date, the interim order dated 17.11.2008 is not in force,and the main Writ Petition vide W.P.No. 13621 of 2007 wasdismissed for default on 04.08.2010.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court does notfind any merit in the Contempt Case. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted liberty toralseall the grounds in the pending Writ Petitionralseall the grounds in the pending Writ Petition Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand c 1oS"L"L
sD/- K.[SnYlesul]
DEPUW [RE][GISTRAR]
//TRUE [COPY//]
SECTION [OFFICER]
To,
1. One [CC to SRI ][M ][A BARI Advocate [OPUCI]
TwoCCs to [GP FOR ][REVENUE' ][High Court for the State ][of]) Telangana [OUTITelangana [OUTI
3. One [CC ][to ][SRI ][T' ][SUDHAKAR REDDY ][Advocate ][IOPUCI]
4. Two [CD ][CoPies]AAJJAKw
*d-ii-i-'.*r..t,iiE',l..tFft&I,.4
HIGH COURT
DATED: 2911212023
ORDER
CC.No.630 of 2011
THE CONTEMPT CASEIS DISMISSED
td"Lw6fa
i-ti.rilil '.t| -. r,:liR1HEsl4 15:(:^(\o(.tj01 t,pl tal'r' l: [-il]1oli , [., ]';[t*'IIj,s.pArcHggI,*,i#&:,t,tfttr'.-ri'l,t,*{.,1+ffij : "lii, '!l