C and us. G.Srinviqso Reddg and others I K.Mo.llaiah and others v. Sanrj eep Kumar Sultania and others

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following: OROER ( THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S ARATH CONTEMPT CASE No.1965 OF 2(24 ORDER:

1. Heard Mr. P.Girish Kuntar, learned Ser ior Counsel, representing Mr.. M.Vcnkatram Reddy. lea.- recl Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Habeebuddin, lear :d Assistant Govcrnment Pleader appcaring lor the respo r cler-rts.

2. 'lhe Cor-rtempt Casc is lilcd under S,::tions 10 to 12 of the Contempl o[ Courts Act, 197 I t,t punish the respondent No.2 District ColLcctor, for wiilful disobedicnce of rhe order dated 21 .Og.2O.2: passecl b1, this Court irr W.P.No.3 1434 ol 20L7.

3. The learned Scnior Counsel lor th , petitioner would submit that thc petitioner fibd \\ rit petition No.31434 of 2Ol7 questioning the Il tdorsement Lr.No.E2lt975/20t6, datecl 07.06.2016 is;.reci by the respondcnt No.2. r.r,trercby the request of t..l: petitioner for assignment of land :rdmeasuring to ar Ac.5.0O Guntas irr Sy.No. I28, situated at Go , of Ilathnoor. Mand:rl, Sar-rga Reddy Disr r ict, uncler extent of rndrajpall_v I i ! ! I I, Ex-servicemafl quota, was rejected ailcl sought to set aside the said endorsement and requested to direct the rcspondent authorities to ailot the Govern ment land to the petitioner. Alter l-rearing both side s the Court disposed of tlre said writ petition on 2l'OB'2023 by setLing aside thc Endorsement No'E2/ 1978/2016 daLecl 07 07.2016 ancl directed respondent No"2 District Collector,toreconsiciertht:caseoftilepetitiorrerfor assignment of ()overnment lancl in terms of policl' of G.O.Ms.No.743, R':venue Department' datcd 30 04 1963 and pass appropriatc orders, within a- period of three monthsfromthedateofreceiptofthec<;pyofthesaid order.

4. The learned Senior Counsei for the petrtloner would further submit that the respondr:nt No 2 with a m.ala ftde intention to <;ircumvent the binding orders has resorted to sit over the Juclginent of this Court by interpreting the G.O Ms'No 743, Revenue Department dated 30.04 .1996- bv its ordcr dated' 13'O8'2O24' held thatduetoinconsistencyintheG.o.therequestofthe . I petitioner is not considered and the sarne was communicated to the pctitioner on 17.08.,.r.)24. The said action of the respondent No.2 in sitr r :rg over the Judgment and ir-rtcrpreting the said G.O. is nothing but contempt of Court and requested to tunish the respondents undcr Contempt of Court Act.

5. The lean-red Senior Counsel for the l etitioner support ol his contention relied on ttt: lollowing 1n Judgments 1 2 A.P.S.R.".C and us. G.Srinviqso Reddg and others I K.Mo.llaiah and others Vs. Sanrj eep Kumar Sultania and others 2

6. On the other hand the learne<i Assistant Government l)leader, basing on the counter iled by the Respondent No.2-District Collector, Sanga Il-'ddy would submit that in vicw of the orders passed l) y this Court dated 21.08.2023 in Wp No.31434 of 201,7, e notice was issued to thc petitioner by the Respondent Nr .2_ District ' 1zooo) -t scc r,t-t r 2015 SCC Online \d 26l I 4 Collector vide Lr.No.El I l8OBl2Ol8 dated 24'07'2024 requiring him to attend before lhe him on 27 'O7 '2024 aLong rvith the connected documents The petitioner attended on the said date and submitted representation along with the clocuments available with him As there is inconsistencv in the saicl G O, several letters have beer-i addressed bv the then District Collector' Nledak at Sanga Red<11' vidc Lr'No tr2/2552 12011 daterd 05.12.2017,03.09.20l9 and 25 11'2019 and 12'O7'2024 to the Special Chief Secretary to Government and Principal Secretary to Government and clarif,rcations are yet to be received. 7 . The learned Assistant Government Pleader u'ould further submit that after examination of the documents filed by thc petitior-ier in terms of policy of G.O.Ms.No.743, Revcnue Department, dated 30'04'1963' Lhe request of the petitioner for assignment of Government land was rejected vide endorsement No.tr1/1808/2018 dated 13'OB'2024 and in view of the same there is no violation of the ord'ers passed by this \ i J1 l 1 3 I E E I I w 5 Court in W.P.No.31434 of 2Ol7 and the Co Ltempt Case is not maintainable and requested to lismiss the Contempt case .

8. Hearing both sides and on perusinll the record, this Court is of the considered view that 11 .e petitioner filed W.P.No 31434 of 2017 quesrioning the : ndorsement Lr.No.E2l1978/2016 dated c)7.06.2016, ; hereby the request of the petitione r lor allotment of lovernment Land in Sy.No.128, admeasuring Lo an exti:r t ol Ac.5.00 Guntas at Govindrajpally of Hatnoor Mar da1, Sanga Reddy District was rejected on the ground l eat there is acute shortage of Governmr:nt land in the _ istrict. This Court disposed of Lhe said writ petition on 21.Og.2O2g The operativc portion of the said Judgme.. Lt reads as under: " In the circumstance-s, the urit petittct. is allou..ed. setting aside the irnpugnecl End-orserr ent with a further direction to the respond.ent yo.2_District Collector to reconsider the case of the r e:titioner for assignnt.ent of Gouernment lancl in terms tf th.e poticy of the (]ouernment iru G.O.Ms.No.74.3. Reuenue, 6 ( dated 30.04.1963, in Sy No'132 or in S17"1{o 3l' situaterl at Goumdrajpally Village oJ' Hathnoor Mandal, Scutga Reclclg Dtstrict, or in aruA other auailable land ancl pclss oppropiate orders uithin penod, of tLvee (3) morihs f'om the date of receipt of copg of this orc7er' 'l^here sin'lL no order as lo cosls" g. The operative portion of thc said order shows that there is no spccific dircction to the re:spondent No 2 to allot the Govcrntncnt lancl but rlirected the respondenl No.2/District Collcctor re'consider the case of the petitioner for assignrnetrt of Govcrnment land in terms of the poiicy of Lhe Government in G'O.r\4s'No 743' Revenue, daLed 30 O4 1963 in Sy'No 132 or in Sy'No'31' situatecl at Govindra.lpally ViLlage ol Hatl'rnoor Mandal' Sanga Reddy District, or in any other available land and pass appropriatc or<1ers rvithin period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order' In view ol the said orders passed by this Court' the respondent No.2-Districl Colle<:tor has issued notice to the petitioner vidc Lr'No'El/ 1SO8/2018 dated 24.07.2024 to appear on 27 ()7 '2024' on which date the I Ef t I i t, I I l petitioner appeared and submitted thr: available documents ald on verification of the documerr .s the case of the petitioner was rejected as petitioner's czr re is not in accordance with the requirements

10. As per the orders of this Court, the respondent No.2-District Collector, reconsidered the c: se of the petitioner and rejected the request of the pr<: itioner for allotment of Government land and therefor<: here is no violation of the orders passed by the petitione I , therefore the Judgments relied on by the learned Cou: se1 lor the petitioner do not apply to the facts of the iri tant case However, if the petitioner has any grievarc.r , he can question the same before the appropriate Fonr n, but not in the Contempt Case. In the Contempt Case, this Court has limited jurisdiction to decide the vali,l ty of the rejection orders passed by the respondent Nr.2-District Collector. In view of the same, there is ri,, cause of action to file the Contempt Case ald the Conl )mpt Case is liable to be dismissed I 8 t. C 1 1. With the above finding, the Contempt Case is dismissed. This order is not precluded the petitioner to challenge the impugneC Proc.No.El/ IBOB/2O18 dated i3.Oa.2O24 before the appropriate forum. No order as costs. Miscelianeous petitions pending, if any, shall stald clo sed. SD/-T.VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . Sri. Vellur Kranthi, District Collector, Sangareddy District- 502001, At Sangareddy.

2. One CC to SRI VENKATRAIVI REDDY MANTUR Advocate [OPUC] 3. TwoCCsto GP FOR ASSIGNMENT , High Court for the State of Telangana

4. Two CD Copies TUPSL \ \ T! ! i F HIGH COURT DATED:1211O12025 t C)r:1 n' * 1 I Fr. {ES "tA Ltr ! )t?F t 1 '4r ORDER CC.No.1965 of 2024 DISMISING THE CONTEMPT CASE i ! 1: ! I k U r;,L