The High Court · 2025

Sri. Aravind Kumar, lAS, Principal Secreta Urban Development Department, State of ry, Municipal Administration and Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. Sri. Aravind Kumar, lAS, The Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Administrative, L-Block, District Commercial Complex, Tarnaka, Hyderabad.

3. N. Prasoonamba, w/o. C.Veerender, Aged 53 years, Land Acquisition Officer Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Tarnaka Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 3 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner No.1 herein on 1511212023 in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner No. t herein on 10-11- 2023 in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders. i 1 i I I I I I I I I Erc+4)sa084 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner no.'1 herein on 1910212O24 ia lie interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances. stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the personal appearance of the petitioner Nos. 'l and 2 herein on 07lOOl2023 in the rnterest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1O43 of 20:23 ORDER: This Contempl Case is filed alleging non compliance of the interim ordcr, dated 16.O2.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1836 of 2O2O, wherein this CourL directed the respondent No.2 to register the Plot No.181 admeasuring 666.67 sq.yards in favour of the petitioner as per the allotmcnt made on 3 i.1O.2016 duly relaxing the conditions for thr: rcgistration as applicablc under the Schcme within a pcriod of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and to file status rcport on the registration of the said plot by

16.03.'2023.

2. It is stated that land to an extent of Ac.99.13 gts in Sy.Nos.SOO & 501 situated at Uppal Bhagayat Village, u,as acquired for Musi River Conservation & River I,'ront Devclopment after following the procedure under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In lieu of compensation, the land-losers requested for allotment of alternative developed lar.rd r.r I I OOO sq.yards as promised vide Proccedings No.l,A/llLtl)A 1363 l05 dated 20.O4.2OO7. On the recommendations of Hyderabad Municipal Dcvelopment Authorigr (HMDA), the Government agrccd the proposal and issued G.O.Ms.No.36 Municipal Adnrinistrarion and Urban Dcvelopment r. 2 Department datcd 22.O1 .2Ol i pcrmitting thc r.cspondents to allot/award lOOO sq.yards for every one acre land acqurrcd in lieu of monetary compensation under Section 3 i(3) of Land Acquisition Act. It is stated srhen the said benefits werc noL t_,xtcnclcd to the pctitioner, hc filed w.p.No. rgDal2006 ar-rd rhis (jorrrL vide order dated 28.O2.2O 1 1 disposed o1' the said writ pctirion directlng the respondents to extend the benefit in terms o[ sarcl G O. When the respondents have not executcd con\revancc deed to tlt(,agrced cxtent of land/plot in licu of compensation, thc pi:titioner liled tl-ris Court has grantcd inlr:rim orcler on 16.02.2023. The grievancc of the petitioner in this con,-empt case is that even after specific directions issued by this Cour_t lo register the plot No.181 adn'reasuring 666.67 sq.yards allotted lo rhe petitioner as per the allotment order clated 31.O2.2O16 cluh, rr_,laxing the conditions, till dzrte, the rcspondents have not take.r-r irrrr. .ctron and thereforc, prayed this Court to initiate contempt proccr:dings against the respondents under the provisions of Contempt r)l Courts Act. r97 t. W.P.No. 1836/2020 and

3. After reccipt of the notice in this Contenrpr Casc, the respondent No. 1 has filed coun ter inter alia stating tha( the land of abutting to the Inner Ring Road arrrri as per the Govcrnmcnt in Memo No.1gg29/ I l,/20 12 d:rted the petitioner is directions of thc J O1.08.2015, the Metropolitan Commissioner vide proceedings No.LAl363/2005 dated 31.10.2016 alloficd plor No.18t admeasuring 666.67 sq.yards. It is further stated that various other persons were also allotted plots in lieu of compensation. In terms of the policy guidelines issued by rhe Govcrnment, it is stated one Sri Venu Gopal has filed W.P.No.970O/ 2017 prayrng this Court to direct the respondents not to allot land admeasuring 40 I sq.yards in Sy.No.454 of Uppal Bhagayarh Village of HMDA layout. This Courr vide order dated 20.03.2O 17 grantcd interim direction in the said Writ Petition and the same is in lorce as on date. It is spccihc case of the respondents that to the extent of palta land admeasuring Ac.O-

05.5459 gts that was acquired, the petitioner is etigiblc to get 13g.87 sq.yards and 138.87 sq.yards o[ devcloped land and the same was awarded vide award No.LAl363/ 156/05 dated 1 t.0l .20 12. The remaining extent of Ac.0-34.4451 gts for which the writ petitioner clarmed compensation is covered uncler the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 and the samc !\,as declared as surplus and possession was taken over by the Governmcnt and hence no compcnsation is awarded. It is lurther stated that pending adjudication of the W.P.NI.)7OO /2017 , the petitioner filed subject W.P.No.1836/202O seeking allotment o[ the land. It is stated that in view of the interim orders granted in W.p.No.97OO of 2OIZ noL to allot land to zrn extent of 401 sq.yards in Sy.No.4S4 of HMDA lavout 4 . .:, .. !,1,rl and as the allotted plot No. 1g 1 falls in Sy.No.454, the respondents could not cxecute the conve,r,ance deed. Narrating the above facts, the rcspondcnts pleaded that there is no wilful and dclibcraLe violation on their part to sub.ject them for rigmarole of the contempI trial and prayt:d to close the contempt proceedings.

4. Pending adjudication ol the contempt case, the respondents filed an undcrtaking memo datcd 25.01.2024 stzrtlng that thcy are taking all possible stcps for carly disposal of W.p.No.9 TOO l2Ol7 u.hich is Itavir-rg bearing for compliance of Lhc orclers passcd rn W.P.No. Ia36l2O2O and soon zrfter disposal of the sard u,rit perition, the1, will implement the ordr:rs dated 76.02.2023 passecl bl this Court.

5. 'l'his Court has carefullv considered the submrssions o[ the learncd counsel lor the respective parties and perused thc rccorcl

6. [t is seen from the record that the petitioner,s land was acquired by t he respondents in terms of the guidelines issued bt, t he Government vidc G.O.Ms.No.36 dated 22.O1.2011 on the assurance that they will allot a developed plot in lieu of monetary compensertion under Sectio, 31(3) of the Lar,d Acquisition Act. It is statcd that seeking to extend the said beneht, the petitioner has filed W.P. No. 19128 / 2006 and in terms of the orders passecl in thc said I 5 writ petition, the petitioncr \4'as allottcd Plot No.180. For the remaining extent of land, in te rms of the award passed in Proceedings No.LAl363/ 156/05 dated 1I.Ol.2OI2, the petitioner was allotted Plot No.181 to an exLent of 666.67 sq.yards. The case of Lhe respondents is that pending handing over ol Plot No.181 allotted to the petitioner, a writ petition came to be filed by third party vide W.P.No.970O/2017 u,hercin interim ordcrs wcre granted not to allot land to an extent of 401 sq.yards in Sy.No.454 and thus the respondents expressed their inability to execute the conveyance dccd in favour of thc petitioner in terms of the order daLed 16.02.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.1836/2020.

7. It is stated that the respondents have taken all measures for vacating the interim orders passed in W.P.No.970O /2017 and also lilcd an undcrraking on 25.O1 .20'24 s{irting Lhat soou after vaca[ion/ modifrcation of the interim ordcrs, the orders dated 16.02.2023 passed by this Court would be implemented. It may be noted that even aftcr lapse of more than one yearr the rcspondents have not taken any measures either to vacate the interim orders passed in W.P.No.97O0/20 17 or preferred any appeal. Further, the respondents have neithcr provided any alternative site to the pe titroner nor paid any compensation. In the abscnce of the same in their plcadings, it can be reasoneLbly inferred that. the respondents I 6 havc not mad<: bona [i.e efforts to have the interrm ordcrs vacated or to cxecut(l tilt: convcyance deed in favour of the pefitioner. These actions clcarll. dcmonstrale that the undertaking filed by the rcspondents \\,as not in good faith but merely an attempt Lo avoid itritiation of c rr.1p,,111,,1 ytrocecdings.

8. For thc lrlorcsaicl reasons, this Contempt Case is disposed of directir-rg the r-csp.rderlts to execute conveyance deed in terms of thc orders dared l(r.O2.2023 passed by this Court in W.p.No. 1g36/2O2O within a pcr.iod of (hrrc (3) months frorn the date oi. receipt of copy ot lhis orclcr and a copy of the same shall be liled belbre the Registry, failing which, thc rcsponclent Nos.1 and 2 shall suffer simple rmprlsonment lor a period of two(2) weeks and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rlrpccs one thousand) each, in default to suffer simple rmpnsonmcnt lirr.a pcriod of or,e(1) week. Miscellancous 1;etitions, if an1,, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. K. AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR .=&!J oFFrcER To, 1, One CC to SRI K DURGA PRASAD, Advocate tOpUCl 2. fwo CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies SS/gh {+- HIGH COURT DATED:0910612025 ORDER CC.No.1043 of 2023 . 1rr[ St,1 ( c( \1- 20[ '/ ..,, / DISPOSING OF THE CONTEMPT CASE e*6d \4- t\rt