Pamireddy Manohar Reddy v. Mr. Gaffar Miya,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.576 of 2017 ORDER:

1) The present Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act stating that the respondent has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the order, dated 15.11.2016 passed in W.P.No.5428 of 2016.

2) It is stated that vide order, dated 15.11.2016, while disposing of W.P.No.5428 of 2016, this Court directed the fifth respondent ie. Tahsildar, Yedpally Mandal, to dispose of the proceedings in ROR/ 160/ 06, pursuant to the order dated 08.05.2007 passed in W.P.No.10439 of 2007. In spite of number of representations, the same is not complied with. 3) A counter came to be filed by the respondent disputing the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case. It is stated that earlier the petitioner approached this Court vide W.P.No.10439 of 2007, seeking to set aside the orders of the Joint Collector dated 08.05.2007. The matter was remitted to the Tahsildar, Yedpally, with a direction to dispose of the same. Inaction of the Tahsildar lead to filing a case in W.P.No.42300 of 2015, which came to be disposed of, directing the Tahsildar to examine the petitioner's application in the light of the directions of this court referred to in

W.P.No.10439 of 2007, dated 04.06.2014. Pursuant thereto an enquiry came to be conducted with regard to land admeasuring Ac.6.30 gts., in Sy.No.106/ 3A situated at Pocharam village of Yedpally Mandal. During the enquiry it was revealed that there is an interim order in I.A.No.60 of 2014 in O.S.No.39 of 2013 dated 20.01.2015, filed by one Pamireddy Chinna Rami Reddy and another, wherein defendant No.1, ie., the petitioner in W.P.No.42300 of 2015 was restrained by way of temporary injunction from alienating the suit property by way of sale, mortgage lease or in any other manner in favour of others till disposal of the main suit. In view of the above, the authorities disposed of the case vide Memo Lr.No.ROR/ 160/ 2006, dated 03.05.2016 stating that the request cannot be considered till the disposal of the main suit.

A copy of the order was also communicated to the petitioner through registered post on 04.05.2016. It appears that the said fact of filing the suit, order passed in I.A. and the order dated 03.05.2016 were never referred to in the writ petition. Without referring to the same, an order came to be obtained directing the authorities to dispose of ROR/ 160/ 2016, which was disposed of much prior to filing of the writ petition. 4) In view of the above, it cannot be said that the order dated 15.11.2016 passed in W.P.No.5428 of 2016, has been violated by the respondent.

5) Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J 30.11.2018 gkv