Kova Lingamaiah , @ Jella Lingam v. Sri Lokewsh Kumar D-S., lAS, Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3A32OF 2025 Contempt Case filed Under Sections 10 to '12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents herein wilful disobedience of the Orders of the High Court dated 25-04-2025 passed in W.P.No. '12605 of 2025. Between: Kova Lingamaiah , @ Jella Lingam, S/o. late Kova Lingaiah, aged about 51 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 3-91, Nadergul village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. ...Petitioner AND

Sri Lokewsh Kumar D-S., lAS, Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana,.

Sri C. Narayan Reddy, lAS, The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.

Sri K. Ananta Reddy, The Revenue Divisional Officer, lbrahim Patnam, R.R. Dist.

Sri B. Sudershan Reddy, The Tahsildar, Abdullapurmet lvlandal, Ranga Reddy Dist. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Nomula Jagan Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Revenue The Court made the following: ORDER 1 IN THE HIGH COURT TTOR THE STATE OF TELAITGANA AT ITYDERAEAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY Contemot Case o.3832 of 2o25 DATE: 3O.O1.2026 Between: Sri Kova Lingamaia_h AND ..Petitioner Sri Lokewsh Kr.rmar D.S., I.A.S., and three others, ORDER ....Respondents This Contempt Case is hled alleging non-compliance of the order clared 25.04 2025 passed by this Court in Writ petition No.12605 of

2025. 2 This Courr. uide order dated 25.04.2C25 disposed ot \['.P.No.12605 of 2O2S, with t]re following directions: "6 Thts Cout1, ttittout e4)ressing ang opinion on the ttght and c lttlenteit o-f the petitioner a nd. since it is stated {hat the p.e,ttttoner arv1. her JdmilA membets hate been in possessjon orf tlLe suliect propertA since more t an 7O geirs, deem, it dppropnate to dispose oJ this u.)it petition allowing tlle petitioner to tnake appropiate application before te autltoities <nncerned under Lhe prouisions of tte Bhu Blarati Act, 2O2S and tn the euertt of su<:h application behg filed bg the petitioner, e re-sIx)ndettts shall con_sider tLLe same and. pass ord.ers in eccordatlce uith ldtu_ lrl anA euent, i-f t@ respond.ents (ume to a (rrrr(Ilsiorr Ll.u1t tlle petitio. Ler ts tat entitleil for mutation an(j issuaace of polt.tdar passbook, po, ss a reasoned. order and @mmunicate the s(;me to tlle petitiorgr. TLLe etlttre e)cercxse shall be @mpteted as expeditiotl.st, as posstbte, pij"-ritii,- _rtnn o peng! of sb(. (06) ,nDnth.s ftom- tre dat; ;J ,"-iJip, "1 ,n" petitioner's dpplicattotL "

3. The learned counsel for tl:e petitioner submitted that in compliance with the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner made three representations dated I 3.05.2025, I t.O6.2O25, and 0 1. 1 1.2O25, to Respondent Nos.l, 2, and 4 respectively, seeking imptementation of the orders. However, the respondents have failcd to implement the same despite receipt of said representations.

4. The learned Assistant Governrnent pteader for Revenue appearing for the respondents on written instructions from the respondent No.4 has submitted that upon verification of records, it was found that Abdullapurmet Mandal falls within the limits ot the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (for short "HMDA,I, and as per Annexure-I appended to G.o.Ms.No.2g 4 dated tg.t2.2ol6, the said Mandal is specifically excluded from thc purview of the Sada Bainama Regularization Scheme, as one of the mandatory conditions of the scheme is that it shall not be applicable to the lands situated within the limits of Urban Local Bodies, including HMDA. It is further submitted that the subject lands are duly classihed as Ceiling Surplus and Bhoodan lands, v€sted with the Govemment and recorded rn the 22-A Register, and therefore no mutation or implementation of the petitioner's name can be permitted. Consequently, the respondent -F .: I I I No.4 rejected the request of the petitioner vide Endorsement No.B /3Oa7 /2A25 dated 23.12.2025.

Prima Jacie. rt appears from the record that respondents have initiated action to implement the orders passed by this Court. dated 25.04.2025 passed in W.p.No.1260S of 2O2S by taking into consideration the representations of the petitioner and rejected t}Ie same on the ground that the subject lands are duly classified as ceiling surplus and Bhoodan lands, vested with the Government a'd rccorded tn the 22 A Register. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no case is made cut to hold that the respondents have willfully or deliberately violated the orders o[ this Court so as to invoke the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, lg7l-

Accordrngly. this Contempt Case is closed granting liberty to the petrtioner to avail appropriate remed.ies available under law against the Endorsement dated 23.t2.2O2S issued by the respondent No.4, if so advised Miscellaleous petrtions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- L.LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR I t To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER '1 . Two CCs to the GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

2. One CC to Sri Nomula Jagan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies o Sa/t'Sl- HIGH COURT DATED: 3010112026 ORDER CC.No.3832 ot 2025 oB ltiE S Il (,) , )t ,'l Mf q 7"r; , Lt, i. J. P,,\TC #i,-..>, '.'.--../ CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE )L