Mr. Dara Prasad, Tahsildar, Palwancha v. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 31 Jul 2024
- Bench
- SREENIVAS RAO, SREENWAS RAO
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to avail remedies as ava*abre under the law including questioning the proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, if so aggrieved. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. V.…
Judgment
Mr. Dara Prasad, Tahsildar, Palwancha Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Srikanth Chintala Counsel for the Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER / IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT TIYDERABAI) THE HOI{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENWAS RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.3O29 of2025 Date: 06.O2.2026 Between: Lanka Vinitha Mr. Dara Prasad .. . Petitioner/ Petitioner . . Respondent/ Respondent AND ORDER \ This contempt case has been filed to punish the respondent_ contemnor for non-implementation of the orders passed by this court, dated 31.07.2024 in w.P- No.33862 of 2org invoking the provisions under Sections 10 to l2 ol the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
When this matter was taken up for hearing on 30.01.2026, Ms.D.Harita Kiran, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent-contemnor, submitted that respondent-contemnor had complied the order passed by this Court and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, issued proceedings uide Rc.No.F 1438112024, dated 16.t2.2O24. The copy of the proceedings is enclosed along with the counter afhdavit, filed on No.i40432 of 2025. Learned Assistant
04.12.2025 uide USR Government Pleader further submitted that she has served a copy of the counter on the Iearned counsel for the petitioner. On that day, no 2 representation on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, to give one opportunity, the matter was postid to 06.02.2026. 3 Today also, there is no representation on behalf of t1le petitioner either physical mode or virtual mode.
By virtue of the compliance of the orders passed by this Court dated' this court is of the considered view trrat no further.adjudication is required in the contempt case.
Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to avail remedies as ava*abre under the law including questioning the proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kothagudem, if so aggrieved. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To
Two CCs to Gp FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana touTl
2. One CC to SRt. SRTKANTH CHTNTALA Advocate {OpUCl 3. Two CD Copies PR,/DL w HIGH COURT DATED: 0610212026 ORDER CC.No.3O29 of 2025 CLOSING THE CC A G4
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — ss. 10, 12; Contempt ofCourts Act, 1971.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Telangana High Court, on 31 Jul 2024. The bench was SREENIVAS RAO, SREENWAS RAO.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.