CC/767/2025 of Maddineni Ramesh Babu Vs Surendra Mohan, I.A.S., on 9 January 2026

ORDER:

This Contempt Case is filed alleging non-compliance u-ith the order dated 25-Ol-2O24 in Writ Petition No. 16349 of 2O23. This Writ Petition along with a batch of Writ Petitions was clisposed with the consent of all the parties, wherein Respondents 2 and 3 were directed to veri$ flats / units allotted to pctitioners in Writ Petitions No. 18446, 16,349, 16274 and 84 l5 of 2023 by the Five-Men Allotment committee / Managing Committee and allow Management Committee of the Society to rcgister I I flats / units demanded by them in their names u'rthin a period of four months from the date of the said order. Rcspondents 2 and 3 shall veri$ the pending 160 flats / units and grant permission to Management Committee of the Society I I

to complete registration to cine workers. If Respondents 2 and 3 fail to comply with the above-said direction, petitioners are at liberty to approach this Court artd make a mention of non- compliance. In view of the above direction and in view of the fair consensus arrived at between the parties, no orders need be passed in Writ Petitions No. 46502 of 2022,7152, 810O, 8106, 34 8116, 1315O of2O23, accordingly, they are closed.

1.1. It is stated, the said order copy was communicated to Respondents with a request to implement the samc, but unfortunately, both the respondents are not taking any action for the last one year. Therefore, he liled the contempt case.

2. Both tJle Respondents liled their counters. The I't Respondent contended that Acs. 67.16 guntas in Survey No. 246/l of Manikonda Jagir Village was allotted to the Telugu Cine Works Cooperative Housing Society for construction of housing units for cinema workers; Government issuecl G.O.Ms. No. 658 dated 04-07-1994 and constituted a five-mcn committee for allotment of House Units to the eligible cinc workers and the said Committee conducted six meetings and allotted housing units to its members; it is also observed that in case of any withdrawal or changes, the Managing Committee is authorized to take decision and place before general bodv for \ I

o ratificatio n. The Five-men committee in its 2od meeting dated 13-06-201O allotted Row House No.57 to petitioner uide allotment list but he did not occupy the said house and also did not get the same register in his name. It is contended that the Five-Men committee in its meeting dated 2l-LL-2015 cancelled the allotment made in favour of petitioner and allotted the same to J. Madhusudhan who occupied the same. The comrnittee re- allotted E5-lO4 to petitioner, therefore he cannot be allotted Row House No.57. It is further stated, the lst Respondent also passed proccedings Rc.No. 316/2013-HR2 dated 16-04-2025 to comply with this Court's order.

3. The 2"d Respondent also filed counter reiterating the facts stated by the l"t Respondent in his counter and nothing new issue was raised. After hearing tl.e case for some time, the m:rtter was adjourned and in the meantime, the 2nd respondent filed additional counter allidavit on 09-09-2025 stating th:rt the re-constituted Five-Men committee in its meeting dated O2-O5-2O25 issued memo vide Rc No.5296/2O25- HR2 dated I I -O7 -2025 allotting EWS E5- 1O4 to petitioner. He also contcnded that J. Madhusudhan was a primar5r member and he was allotted Row House No 57 and also an allotment order u.as issued in favour of one Sri. J. Mytri Varun s/o. J I I I I

Madhusudhan (Unit No. 8-f 102). It is also contended that J. Anjaiah who is the father of J. Madhusudhan was also allotted EWS El-3O4. It reveals that J. Madhusudhan his father and his son were allotted three individual units and J. Madhusudhan is one of the member in Five Men Committee

4. The contempt petitioner also filed a reply reiterating that originally Row House No. 57 was allotted to him and without any proper cancellation order issued to him the said House was fraudulently allotted to J. Madhusudhan who is one of the Five Men Committee members. According to petitioner, he cannot be allotted a Row House for himself being a committee member; further, J. Madhusudhan, his son and father were allotted two separate units which is not permissible under the Act.

5. Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri K. Durga Prasad and learned Government Pleader for Cooperation on behalf of respondents.

6. From a perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the order under contempt was passed after hearing all the counsel and more particularly the counsel appeared for the Society who fairly submitted that they would register flats allocated in the name of petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 18446

t I 16349, 16274 and 8415 of 2023, and directed Respondents 2 and 3 at pata 32 of the common order by giving 4 months' time from the date of the order. However, respondents have not verified and registered the unit in favour of petitioner till date and not shown any interest to comply with the order. It reveals that respondents are not interested to execute the registration in favour of Petitioner who could establish his case that he was a member of the society for the last several years and he was allotted Row House No.57 by the original Five-Men committee way back on 13-06-2O1O. Petitioner also proved that he was originally allotted Row House No 57 and he is enfitled to get the possession and registration of the same.

7. In the light of the same, this Court frnds that respondents have deliberately violated the order dated 25-Ol-2O24, hence, are found guilty. However, a lenient viev is taken, directing respondents to execute conveyance deed in favour of Petitioner for a Row House pursuant to the order dated 25-Ol-2O24 within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [t is needless to say, amount due if any be collected from Petitioner. Respondents are directed to report compliance before the Registry of this Court.

8. The Contempt Case is accordingly, disposed of. l \ \ I

I /

9. Consequently, the miscell€rneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. SD/- L. LAKSHMI BABU EPUTY REGIS //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRl. K DURGA PRASAD, Advocate IOPUCI

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

3. Two CD Copies DUPSL ?(\c\ a , l i I i I I I

HIGH COURT DATED:09/01/2025

ORDER

CC.No.767 ot 2025 1HE S .J .!) j r:[8 lU/b (

I * * 5\A*' C.C. IS DISPOSED OF I CP*