Solipuram Swapna v. Sydulu Goud
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
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 SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CONTEMPT cASE NO: 474OF 2017 Contempt case filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 lo punish the respondent for his willful disobedience of the orders dt. 06.01.2017 passed in WP No. 941 of ZOll of this Hon'ble High Court. Between:
Solipuram Swapna, D/o. i!'lipuram Venkatrami Reddy Wo. Naresh Kumar Aged 29 years, occ Housewife, Rt/o. Dr. No. 8-3-169/601240, lndianagar, Bora5anda, Hyderabad.
... Petitioner/Petitioner AND Sydulu Goud, Occ: The Tahsildar, Khairatabad Mandal, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District.
RespondenURespondent No.2 Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRt . HANUMANTHA RAO BACHtNA, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ASSIGNMENT The Court made the following ORDER:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENTVAS RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.474 of 2OL7 ORDER:
This contempt case, under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is frled by the petitioner to punish the respondent for gross violation of the order, dated 06.0l .2017 passed by this Court in W.P.No.941 of 2017.
2.
Heard Sri B.Hanumanth Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner arrd learned Assistant Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the respondent.
3.
A perusal of the record shows that this Court while disposing of the W.P.No.941 of 2Ol7 on 06.0l.2Ol7 directed the respondent not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following due process of law. The specific allegation of the petitioner is that in spite of the order passed by this Court, the respondent without following any \ I due process of law trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property.
X JSR,J C.C.No.474 of 2017 .) The respondent/contemnor filed counter on O2.OB.2O|7, wherein it is specihcally stated that the subject property is vacant, the same is in possession of the Government and sign boards have been erected. Therefore, the question of dispossession or demolition of the petitioner's house property does not arise. In support of the said averments, the respondent filed photographs along with the counter-affidavit 6.
The petitioner neither filed reply nor denied the averments made in the counter-afhdavit filed by the respondent 7 .
In rriew of the specific averments made by the respondent in the counter-affrdavit, ttris Court does not find any merits in the present contempt case 8.
Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. I SD/.CH. VENKATESWARLU DEPUTYREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. Two CCs to GP for Assignment, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]
2. One CC to Sri. Hanumantha Rao Bachina, Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CD copies.
cvk MY 8$r\,
\ HIGH COURT DATED:2911212023 o.J 'i, 1 S FIii iiii,l -'t.' ,l -1 - .- ;' ,../ ._ ':i.Sp r I atii --,.,-"
- r\:- -::::;;;.-
ORDER
GC.No.474 of 2017 CC IS CLOSED.
\>\o\''-^'r'