Telangana High Court
CC/949/2017 of Kayyam Venkataiah, Vs Sri G. Ramesh 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 SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO:949 OF 20{7 Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to punish the Respondent herein for
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO,d.r "t! lCONTEMPT CASE NO:949 OF 20{7Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to punishthe Respondent herein for violating the orders dated 06/1 1/2015 in W.P.No.36314 of 2O15 ot the Honble High CourtBetween:r1. Kayyam Venkataiah, S/o Lasmaiah Aged 72 years, Occ Agriculture, R./oMulkanuru (V) Chigurumamidi (M), Karimnagar District2. Kayyam Mallaiah, S/o Lasmaiah Aged 70 years, Occ Agriculture, Rl/oMulkanuru (V) Chigurumamidi (tt4), Karimnagar District3. Kayyam Muthaiah, S/o Venkataiah Aged 67 years, Occ Agriculture, R/oMulkanuru (V) Chigurumamidi (M), Karimnagar District4. Kayyam Srinivas, S/o. Ivlallaiah Aged 45 years, Occ Agriculture, Ryoi'Mulkanuru (V) Chigurumamidi (M), Karimnagar District...PETITIONEFYCONTEMPT PETITIONERSANDSri G. Ramesh, Tahsildar Chigurumamidi (M), At Chigurumamidi karimnagar Districtd.,..RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. KOWTURU PAVAN KUMAR, Advocate:SRl. A. Srinivas Rohith Counsel for the Respondent:Assistant GP FOR REVENUE (TG)
The Court made the following: ORDER
.,.i;.',.r:-$iii;
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:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS [RAO]CONTEMPT CASE No.949 of [2OL7]
This contempt case, under Sections [1O ]to [12 of ][Contempt of]Courts Act, 1971, is frled by the [petitioners ][to ][punish ][the]respondent for gross violation of [the ][order, ][dated ][06.11.2015]passed by this Court in W.P.No.36314 [of 2015.]2. Heard Sri A.Srinivas Rohit, learned counsel [representing]Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, learned [counsel ][for the ][petitioners ][and]learned Assistant Government [Pleader ][for ][Revenue ][appearing ][for]the respondent.
A perusal of the record shows that this perusal of the record shows that this of the record shows that this the record shows that this record shows that this shows that this that this this [[Court ][while]][[while]]
3. A perusal of the record shows that this perusal of the record shows that this of the record shows that this the record shows that this record shows that this shows that this that this this [[Court ][while]][[while]]of W.P.No.36314 of 2015 on [06.11.2015 ][directed]disposing respondent No.2 to dispose of the [appeal ][Iiled by the ][petitioners,]questioning the eviction order passed by respondent No.3 [on]13.10.2015, within a period of one week ald till [such time, ][the]eviction order passed by respondent No.3 [sha1l ]not [be ][enforced. ][In]spite of the specific direction issued by this [Court, ][the]respondent/ contemnor interfered with the subject [property.]
2
C.C.No.949 of 2017
4. Learned Assistant Government pleader for for Revenueappearing for ttre respondent/contemnor I-rled counter-affrdavitstating that the appellate authority/ Revenue Divisional Officer,Karimnagar disposed of the said appeal on 29.Og.2O17 confirmingthe order of respondent No.3 in the writ petition. pursuant to theorder passed by this Court, the respondent is not dispossessing thepetitioners from the subject property till the disposal of the appeal.He further stated that he has not violated the orders of this Courtand he rendered unconditiona_l apologr for disconnection of powersupply to the agricultural wells by the electricity authorities.
Learned Assistant Government pleader for for Revenue
5. In rriew of the specific averments made in para 4 of thecounter-affidavit, no further adjudication is required in the presentcontempt case.
6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if aly pending, shall stald closed.
t:,:l rji.i
,,.L. .rr1i,
HIGH COURT
DATED:2911212023
ORDER
CC.No.949 of 2017
CC IS CLOSED.
o+M
:i.;,..:i.
':a.-i&',. i
"*^' 'ii:
"*^' 'ii:j-+ay I',,9itl,ir+5.. _l(,!:t,',*:;1 1r.[.8i,oufl I ttB zilAc'o**{PATCYl[gC]
. -. i'.,i.;i,,*1: