Telangana High Court
CC/2003/2012 of Panasala Mathamma, Vs Mr. S.Srinivasa Murthy, on 28 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Contempt Case No.2003 of 2012 ORDER: The petitioner filed W.P.No.25775 of 2012 complaining that the representation submitted by her on 30.07.2012 with a request to grant regular patta and to demarcate an extent of Ac.0.66 cents of land in survey No.353/1 of
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.
Conclusion
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Contempt Case No.2003 of 2012
ORDER:
The petitioner filed W.P.No.25775 of 2012 complaining that therepresentation submitted by her on 30.07.2012 with a request to grantregular patta and to demarcate an extent of Ac.0.66 cents of land insurvey No.353/1 of Nallmothuvaripalem Village, Karlapalem Mandal,Guntur District. The writ petition was disposed on 21.08.2012, directingthe respondents herein to verify the record and if it is found that thepetitioner was granted any rights, issue patta to her and thendemarcate the land. The petitioners submits that the 2[nd] respondentissued an endorsement dated 12.11.2012 stating that on verification ofrecords, it is found that the petitioner does not have any right over thesaid land. This according to the petitioner constitutes contempt ofcourt.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedGovernment Pleader for Revenue.
This Court did not pronounce upon the rights of the petitioner. The only direction that was issued by this Court was that therespondents shall verify the record and if it emerges that the petitionerwas conferred with any rights over the land, the pattadar pass book beissued and the land be demarcated. The 2[nd] respondent found thatthe records do not disclose the existence of any rights in favour of thepetitioner. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the endorsement, shehas to work out the remedies separately. It cannot be said that therespondents have committed any contempt.
Hence, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no orderas to costs.
Dated:28.12.2012
GJ
_____________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.