Solanki Gajanath Rao v. Sri Mamidi Shivaraj

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO CONTEM PT CASE NOi 132 0F 2022 Contempt Case Under Section 10 lo 12 oI Contempt of Courts Act to punish the Respondent herein for wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order of the High Courtorderdaled27.o7.2021passedinl.A.No.1ol2021inW.P.No.16944ot 2021 .

Between:

Solanki Gaianath Rao, S/o Gopal Aged 50 years Occ Govt Teacher R/o' Gurrala Tanda, Hio Sonala Boath tvlandal, Nirmal District ...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT NO.5 AND Sri lvlamidi Shivaraj, Tahsildar, Boath Mandal, Adilabad District ' ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA Counsel forthe Respondent: SRl. BOYA RAVINDER REDDY The Couri made the following: ORDER

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO.132 OF 2022 ORDER:

Heard Sri C.Naresh Reddy learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Boya Ravinder Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Reven ue.

2, Petitioner purchased Acs.2.00 guntas ol land from Smt. Chowhan Sundhi Bai in Sy.No.153/A of Sonala village in Boath Mandal. Petitioner had grievance that even though the total extent of land available to Sundhi Bai is only Acs.5.20 guntas and after selling Acs.2.0O guntas to the petitioner, remaining extent of land would be only Acs.3.2O guntas, she i11egal1y partitioned the entire extent of land including Acs.2.00 guntas sold to the petitioner. Having come to know the same, petitioner submitted application for correction in the revenue records, which was referred to Special Tribunal and the Special Tribunal passed orders on 10.02.2021 . To the misfortune of the petitioner, the Special Tribunal passed blanket order covering the entire extent of Acs.5.20 guntas of land, whereas the actual claim of the petitioner is only Acs.2.00 guntas. Chowhan Sundhi Bai and Chowhan Ram Singh filed the Writ Petition No. i6944 of 2021 challenging the same.

( / I

J 3.

The Court having noticed that petitioner is entitled to only Acs.2.00 guntas of land passed orders to that extent. 4.

Petitioner alleges that in spite of orders passed by the Court protecting his Acs.2.00 guntas of land, respondents are not allowing him to mutate his name in the revenue records. 5.

Though, learned Government Pleader sought to justify their action, he also relies upon the letter written by the petitioner requesting to reflect the name in the prohibited list. 6.

Having regard to the fact that petitioner claims to be owner of Acs.2.O0 guntas of land, his entitlement for reflecting his name in the revenue records cannot be denied on the specious ground that Writ Petition is pending. 7.

Therefore, the Contempt Case is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to make an application to mutate his name in the revenue records by enclosing the registered sale deed in EPP Court Order option on the 'Dharani Portal'. He shall also file an application to delete Acs.2.00 guntas from the prohibited list. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

SD/. A.V.S.S.C.S.M.SARMA DEPUTXREGISTRAR Qtt SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To . Sri l\,4amidi Shivaraj, Tahsildar, Boatht\,4andal Adilabad District . One CC to Sri Naresh Reddy Chinnolla, Advocate [OPUC] one cc to sri Boya Ravinder Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] iI: 332!:rf: "r Revenue, Hish court for the btrte oi Tetanga One Spare Capy 3.

4.

5.

6.

CDI, na [)uT] -.'-

HIGH COURT DATED:1 710612022 .IA re:

s 'I ( I z .) .j Jt.lL 2[22

ORDER

* l) IsPAT CC.No.132 of 2022 DISPOSING OF THE CONTEMPT CASE +