Ramchander Singh (Died) v. Sri Natrajan Gulzar,

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 630 OF 2011 Between:

1. Ramchander singh (died),

2. Br'rj Raj singh, S/o Kishan singh, Business

3. Yathender singh, s/o Bharath Singh Business

4. Jaipal Singh, S/o Bharath Singh Business

5. Yashpal Singh, Bharath Singh Business

6. Puran singh, S/o Shanker Singh

7. Kishan Singh,, S/o Shankar Singh Business B. Kapil Singh, S/o Shankar Singh Business

9. Suraj singh, S/o Shankar Singh Business (All the above petitioners are the residents of H.NO.12-1-346, Asifnagar, Hyderabad) ...PETITIONERS AND

1. Sri Natrajan Gulzar,, District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad.

2. Smt. K. Chandrakala, Mandal Revenue Officer (Tahsildar), Asifnagar Mandal, Asifnagar, Hyderabad.

3. Sri tvl. Jagdishwar,, Managing Director, Hyderabad Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board, (HMWS and SB), Khairtabad, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS

Petition filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 lo punish the Respondents No.1 to 3 for the deliberate and intentional violation of the orders dated 'l 7-1 1-2008 in WPMP No. 17085 of 2OO7 in W.P.No.13621l2OO7 passed by this Honble High Cou rt l.A. NO: 1OF 2011(APPL. NO:453 oF 2011) Petition under Section 'l 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to proceed with the work of laying the passage and construction of water tank over the land and hillock belonging to the petitioners covered by Sy.No.S/1 ,512,611 '7,911 & 9/2 totally admeasuring Ac.46-25 Gts., situated at Razdarkhanpet Village, Asifnagar [Vlandal, Hyderabad District during the pendency of the contempt case and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

t ',+, . .: li;r l.A. NO:'l OF 2012(APPL. NO: 191 oF 20121 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 lt is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad to record the cross examination of the Respondent No.2, on behalf of the counsel for petitioners on the counter affidavit filed by 2nd Respondent in CC.No.63012011, by receiving the documents filed in the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRl. MD. AJMAL AHMED, ADVOCATE FORSRI.MABARI Counsel for the Respondent 1 AND 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI T. SUDHffi REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.630 of 2011 ORDER:

This Contempt Case is filed invoking the provisions under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respohdents for gross violation of the orders passed by this Court in o.17085 of 2007 in W.P.No.1362l of 2007, dated P t7.t 1"* I12008.

2.

Heard Sri Md.Ajmal Ahmed, learned counsel representing Sri M.A.Bari, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant Government Pleader'lor Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents violated the status-quo order granted by this court in W.P.M.P.No.l7085 of 2007 in W.P.No. 13621 of 2007, dated I7.l1.2008 and they are liable for prosecution under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.

4.

Per contra,learned Standing Counsel submits that the matn rit Petition vide W.P.No.1362l of 2007 was dismissed for nonsecution on 04.08.2010 and the interim order granted by this ourt on 17.1 1.2008 was merged in the dismissal order. Subsequently, the petitioners filed restoration application seeking to restore the Writ Petition along with the condition of delay application and the said applications were allowed. 5.

Further, learned Standing Counsel basing on the written instructions submits that respondent Nos.l and 2 handed over e possession of the subject property to respondent No.3 on 01 .01 2011 i.e., after dismissal of the main Writ Petition and the questlon of violation of the orders granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.l7085 of 2007 in W.P.No.1362l of 2007. dated

17. I I .2008 does not arise.

6.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it clearly reveals that this Court on 17. 11.2008 in W.P.M.P.No. 17085 of 2007 in W.P.No. 13621 of 2007 directed the partr to maintain status-quo and stated that this order however ds

shall not preclude the Government fiom acquiring any part of petitioner's land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1905 and/or the provisions of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1989. It is very much relevant to place i rebord that the possession of the subject property was handed on ou", L respondent No.3 on 01.01.2011 by respondent Nos.l and 2; that date, the interim order dated 17.11.2008 is not in force, on AS and the main Writ Petition vide W.P.No. 13621 of 2007 was dismissed for default on 04.08.2010.

7.

In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the Contempt Case. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to ll the grounds in the pending Writ Petition a ralse Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand "L S o c sD/- K. SnYlesul d- * i DEPUW REGISTRAR i //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER -iTo,

1. One CC to SRI M A BARI Advocate [OPUCI ) TwoCCs to GP FOR REVENUE' High Court for the State of Telangana [OUTI

3. One CC to SRI T' SUDHAKAR REDDY Advocate IOPUCI '.*r ..t, iiE'

,l..tF ft& ,.4

4. Two CD CoPies AAJJAK

i-ti .ri lil '.t | -. r, :l i HIGH COURT DATED: 2911212023 l4 15:

s R ( ^ o :

(\( j.t 'r' l: -il li ';[ , ., t 'I j, 01 t,pl tal o * s.p Hgg Arc

ORDER

CC.No.630 of 2011 ,* ,i#& ,tft :, t t .-ri'l, ,*{ tr'

THE CONTEMPT CASE IS DISMISSED .,1 +ffi j : "lii , '!l td"L 6fa