Telangana High Court
CC/1645/2010 of Kollu Annapurnamma Vs Sri Rizivi, on 29 December 2010
L. NARASIMHA REDDY Contempt Case No.1645 of 2010 ORDER: Writ Petition No. 3036 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner complaining about the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not furnishing the mutation proceedings and documents effected in the name of the 4th respondent in respect of land in
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
Contempt Case No.1645 of 2010
ORDER:
Writ Petition No. 3036 of 2009 was filed by the petitionercomplaining about the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in not furnishingthe mutation proceedings and documents effected in the name ofthe 4[th] respondent in respect of land in Survey No. 1245/7 ofJagannadhapuram Village, Mungala Mandal, Nalgonda District.
The writ petition was disposed of on 19.2.2009 directing that incase the petitioner submits an application for certified copies of variousdocuments, the third respondent shall furnish the same duly collectingthe prescribed charges. This contempt case is filed alleging that thethird respondent did not comply with the said order.
The third respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that thepetitioner did not submit any formal application and a representationtogether with the said copy of the order in the writ petition was sent byRegistered post and through memo dated 16.11.2010, the thirdrespondent informed the petitioner that the amendment record inrespect of the said lands is not available. Steps are being taken forconducting enquiry.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the leanedcounsel for the respondents.
The grievance of the petitioner was only about the alleged non-furnishing of the records by the third respondent. He did not evenmake a formal application, much less, did he pay the requisite fee. Onreceipt of a representation, the third respondent replied through amemo stating that the concerned record is not available. Therefore, itcannot be said that the respondents have committed any acts ofcontempt.
The contempt case is accordingly closed. There shall be noorder as to costs.
DATE: 29[th] December, 2010
pnb
_______________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J