← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCC/1818/2017dismissed no costs

Tammisetty China Bhiksham, Khammam Dist. And 3 Others v. G. Narasimha Rao, Khammam Dist. And 3 Others

2019-06-14Sanjay Kumar2 pages

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE No.1818 OF 2017 ORDER:

This Contempt Case was instituted alleging willful disobedience to the interim order dated 13.4.2017 passed in WPMP No.16518 of 2017 in Writ Petition No.13307 of 2017. By the said order, the interim direction was granted as prayed for. The prayer in the said WPMP was to direct the respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land.

However, the present Contempt Case has been filed not only against the Tahsildar, Khammam (Rural) Mandal, Khammam District, by name, but also the unofficial respondent Nos.11 to 13 in Writ Petition No.13307 of 2017.

As the interim direction sought and granted in the said Writ Petition was only against the respondent authorities, the unofficial respondents were not bound thereby. Steps taken, if any, by the unofficial respondents would therefore not be in violation of the aforestated interim order. It is for the petitioners to seek redressal of their grievances, if any, as against the unofficial respondents in the Writ Petition by way of independent proceedings before the competent civil Court. In so far as the Tahsildar, Khammam (Rural) Mandal, Khammam District, is concerned, the allegation is that he instigated the unofficial respondents to interfere with the possession of the petitioners. This Court is at a loss to understand as to why the Tahsildar would be interested in interfering in some private disputes. That apart, except for making a bald allegation in this regard, the petitioners are not in a position to prove that the Tahsildar willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court. There is

no other indication of the authorities having interfered with the possession of the petitioners in willful violation of the interim order. This Court therefore finds no ground whatsoever to exercise contempt jurisdiction. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ----------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J.

Dt: 14.06.2019 Kvsn