The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN CONTEM PT CASE NO: 972 oF 2023 Petition filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 197'1 ' praying to ounish the Respondent."io, int"ntionally, willfully and deliberately disobeying il"t['.';;tJ;;"bv tht. H"i;ui"-c""t' in writ peiltion No 1189 or 2023' dated' 11.01 202. Between: Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Disfrict R/o Puppalaguda Village' 1. G. Laxmaiah, S/o. Pentaiah, aged 6!. Y91t"' nr;enara Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 2. tVI. Ramulu, S/o. Sayanna," ig"a bs V"ars' R/o Puppalaguda Village' - 3. B. Sattaiah, s/o. Acharah, ,g;J oB v"ir", R/o. Puppalaguda Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' 57 y?ars' R/o Puppalagudd Village' 4. L. Ravinder, S/o. Jang-Jiui',- "gta ' 5. S. Sailu, sio. Gandaiah, ,g.i oo years, R/o. Puppalaguda Village, Rajendra ;B years' R/o Puppalaguda Village' Rajendra 6. E. Raiu, S/o. Rajaiah, ;;i nri.nOt, Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' NagaiMandal, Ranga Reddy District ^ ...'ET'T'ONERS AND

1. Sri A. Rajashekar' Tahsildar, Gandipet Mandal' Ranga Reddy District' 2. sri. Aravind rumar, commissioner,'Hyderabad-Metropolitan Development Authority (HtvlDA), s*"tn' Jay'ntii i"tnl9193njeeva Reddv Nagar Road' Stiniu".l N"grr, Ameerpet' Hyderabad - 500082 ...RES'ONDENTS . Counsel for the Petitioners :SRl SRIKANTH SUTARI Counsel for the Respondent No'1 :SRl DHARMAPURI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent No'2 :SRl V'NARASIMHA GOUD SC FOR HMDA The Court made the following: ORDER .:- l l I I j I i l HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE I' LAKSHMAN CONTE MPT CASE No.972 oF 2023 ORAL ORDBR I{eard leamcd counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Dharmapuri Kiran, leamed counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counse[ for HMDA appearing on behalf of respondcnt No.2

2. This conrempt case is filed alleging wi[fut and deliberate violation of the order dated I 1.01 .2023 inW p. No. I I g9 of 2023.

3. According to the petitioners, despite interim order d,ated 1I .01.2023 the respondenrs have been prooeeding actively to illegally and forcibly vacate them lrom thcir respective lands by laying fcncing around the plots without lollowing due procedure laid down under law. 'Ihey have stated the said facts in paragraph No.7 of the affidavit, but they have not mentioned the date and timc etc., including the particulars olalleged dispossession by the respondents.

4. 1'o punish conternnor in terms of Section _ 12 of the Contenrpr of Coufts Act, l97l , there should be willful and deliberate violation of the order. 2 KL,J C.C No.972 of2023

5. Vide the order datedl l.0l -2023, this Court recorded the submissions made by learned Special Govemment Pleader that as per the petitioners, possession was not delivered and" therefore, if patta certificates issued in favour of the petitioners in respect of the subject property are intact, the respondents will not touch the said pattas without fotlowing due procedure laid down under law'

6. Respondent No.l has ltled counter contending that the Govemment has issued assigned house site pattas only to the extent of Acs.8.02 guntas of land in Survey No.l61, situated at Puppalguda Village way back in the year 1981 and 1987. Physical possession was shown to the allottees. The individuals have constructed houses in it long back. The remaining vacant extent is Acs 2'00 guntas in the said survey number in continues physical possession of the Govemment' In proof of the same, he has filed photographs and Google Maps from

2003. He has further contended that the contention of the petitioners that the Govemment has allotted plots on receiving hxed sale consideration from them is baseless and without any support The petitioners have not filed any document in proof of payment of the same. The records of his office do not disclose any such payment' l KL,J C.C No 972 of2023 Therefore, the said averments stood unsubstantiated. The petitioners have set up claim on the basis of alleged patta certificates granted to them in the year 1987 with certain conditions. One of the conditions is completing thc construction of house within a period of six (06) months. The petitioners failed to adhere to the said conditions cannot be permitted to claim any equities in the land. pattas were not granted in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.8.02 guntas wherein houses have comc up long back. After more than 35 years, the petitioners approached this Court. 'fhey r.vcre not sholvn the physical possession of the alleged plots even aller several representations. Though the said counter was filed on 06.03.2024, the.petitioners did not file any rejoinder/reply adverting to the same.

7. As discussed above, to punish contemnor in terms of Section - 12 of thc Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, there should be willful and deliberate violation of thc order. ln the present case, there is no violation of order, much less willful and deliberate violation of the order by the respondents. Therefore, the present contempt case is liable to be closed. 4 KL,J C C. No.972 of2023

8. The present Contempt Case is accordingly closed' In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs' As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR lrrt) / sedilbtr--orrrcen '/ To,

1. One CC to SRI SRIKANTH SUTARI, Advocate IOPUC] 2. One CC to SRI DHARMAPURI KIRAN, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, SCFOR HMDA [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies AR/gh \cr I I i i I I I I i ! I , HIGH COURT DATED:2810312025 ORDER CC.No.972 of 2O23 S 16: + J o 31 JUt zffi * o4.,SPATCHt0 l i l l i i I I I I I I I , I I I I I l , ! 1 l l CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE G.udA \a- {e"