CC/1877/2024 of Nallavelli laxmi Vs Sri Rahul Raj, IAS on 13 February 2026

ORDER:

Heard Sri D. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. T'ekuru Swetcha, learned Asst. Govt. pleader for Revenue.

2. 'fhis contempt case is filed alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 04.06.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.E;915 of 2024 by the respondent herein.

3. 'r/ide the aforesaid order, this court allowed the writ petition, setting a:;ide the order dated 20.01.2024 and remanded the matter directing the respondent herein to conduct enquiry afresh and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law by putting the petitione::, respondent No.4 therein - Thipparaboina Gangaiah, Golla Narayana and Kashaboyina Mallaiah, interested parties on notice and affording them an opportunity. Respondent No.4 therein Thipparaboina Gangaiah, Golla Narayana and Kashaboyina Mallaiah shall submit copies of the unregistered sale deed/sadabainama regularization proceedings, if any obtained by them to the respondent herein and he has to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. He shall complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order

4. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid writ petition contending that the petitioner, his paternal grandfather by name Chakali Ushaiah, were the absolute owners and possessors of the land admeasuring Ac.2.22 guntas in Sy.No.284lAl2 situated at Bonal Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District. He died on 1[.08.1987. His wife is also no more and they were issueless. Therefore, the petitioner succeeded the said property

5. She has submitted an application dated 26.06.2022 with the respondent herein with a request to mutate her name and issue pattadar passbook. The same was not considered. Therefore, she has filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.l767 of 2023. Vide order dated 02.08.2023, this Court disposed the said writ petition directing the respondent herein and the Tahsildar, Chegunta Mandal - respondent

Nos.2 and 3 therein, to consider the said mutation application dated 26.06.202.2 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law by putting thr: petitioner and 4'h respondent in w.p.No.89l5 of 2024 i.e. Thipparaboina Gangaiah and all other interested parties on notice.

6. In compliance with the said order, the respondent herein has passed an order dated 20.01.2024 stating that patemal father of the petitioner i.e. Chakali Ushaiah sold the aforesaid property ro Thipparat,oyina Gangaiah 4'h respondent, Golla Narayana and Kashaboyina Mallaiah under unregistered sale deed /sada bainama. He has also referred to the report of the Tahasidar and Mandal Girdavar, wherein i': was stated that the petitioner is not in the village and she is not in physical possession of the said property. The application filed by the per.itioner seeking a direction to 4th respondent was objected for the same. Respondent No.4 - T.Gangaiah is in physical possession of the said property ancl boundaries were also marked. With the said observati,rns, the respondent herein advised the petitioner herein to approach the Civil Court for redressal of her grievance.

7. challenging the said order, the petitioner filed w.p.No.g9l5 of 2024. vide order dared 04.06.2024, this court disposed of the said writ petit.ion, holding that in the impugned order dated 20.01.2024, there is ,o mention about the production of sada bainama either by \'ft

Thipparaboina Gangaiah - 4th respondent in w.p.No. g9l5 of 2024 or Golla Narayana, Kashaboina Mallaiah and interested parties. The respondent herein has to direct Thipparaboina Gangaiah and the aforesaid two persons to produce the said sada bainama and also regularization proceedings. He has to ascertain as to whether, they have obtained regularization proceedings. He has to issue notices to the said Golla Narayana and Kashaboyina Mallaiah. Simply basing on the report of Mandal Girdawar and Tahsildar - respondent No.3 therein, the respondent herein cannot pass orders.

8. Vide the aforesaid order, this Court specifically directed the respondent herein to put the petitioner, said Thipparaboina Gangaiah - 4'h respondent in W.P.No.8915 of 2024,GollaNarayana, Kashaboyina Mallaiah and interested parties on notice and afford them an opportunity. Without affording them an opportunity, without even hearing the petitioner, respondent herein has issued proceedings dated 31.12.2024 rejecting the request made by the petitioner again.

9. It is specific contention of the petitioner that despite direction of this Court to the respondent herein to conduct enquiry and pass appropriate orders by putting the petitioner and aforesaid persons on notice and affording them an opportunity, respondent herein has issued proceedings dated 31.12.2024 violating the said order. I

I

.,v

10. Vide order dated 06.02.2026, this Court directed the learned Asst. Govt. Pleader for Revenue to produce original record in respect of the said proceedings dated 31.12.2024.

11. N{s. Tekuru Swetcha leamed Asst.Govt.Pleader for Revenue has produc;od original record in respect of the proceedings dated 31.12.2024 of the respondent herein and perusal of the said record, it is returned to her-

12. llerusat of the said record would reveal that in the hearing notice, the respondent has not even mentioned its date. However, he has mentioned the date as 14.10.2024 below his signature and there is also mention of 'dispatched' on the same day. Though there is proof of dispatch of the notice, there is no proof of service of notice on the petitioner. However, learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Revenue would submit that the respondent has sent the said notice to the petitioner through \MhatsApp. I'he said fact was not mentioned in the counter filed by the respondent in the present contempt. 13 It is apt to note that the petitioner is 5 1 years old. She is housewil'e. She is clairning small extend of land admeasuring Ac.2.22 guntas. l'his is second round of litigation. Despite this Court directing the respondent herein to put the petitioner, Thipparaboina Gangaiah - 4th respondent in W.I'.No.S915 of 2024, Golta Narayana, Kashaboyina \

- Y*FI \1 i Mallaiah and interested parties on notice and afford them an opportunity, he has not put them on notice and afford them an opportunity. Therefore, he has wilfully and deliberately violated the impugned order

14. It is apt to note that mere allegation of violation of an order is not sufficient to punish the respondent herein and there should be willful and deliberate violation of the order.

15. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the respondent has willfully and deliberately violated the order under contempt.

16. [n the light of the same, the present Contempt Case is accordingly allowed sentencing the respondent herein by name Sri Rahul Raj, IAS, District Collector, Medak District, to suffer simple imprisonment for six (06) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) within 04 (four) weeks from today However, the sentence of imprisonment is suspended for a period of 04 (four) weeks from today As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the Contempt Case shall stand closed.

1. l Sd/- MOHD ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRl. D RAMAKR|SHNAAdvocate IOPUC]

2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for the State of Telangana lourl

3. Two CD Copies To, N

HIGH COURT DATED:1310212026

ORDER

CC.No.1877 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE CONTEMPT GASE 'i -1'-. STAIE ? 0 tEB ?u6 (,-)):

- --1 Il:* ;-'r.i':,':r\ ," -';..:i '* -jJ', ) {^,t* (