High Court for State of TelanganaCC/1311/2014closed no costs

Merigala Ravi, v. G. Sujatha,

2015-01-23C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy3 pages

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Contempt Case No.1311 of 2014 Dated 23.01.2015 Between:

Merigala Ravi

...Petitioner

And G.Sujatha, Tahsildar, Nadendla Mandal.

...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: --- Counsel for the respondent: GP for Revenue The Court made the following:

Order:

This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of Order, dated 14-08-2013, in WP.No.23924 of 2013, by the respondent.

Counsel for the petitioner is absent. He was absent on the earlier date of hearing i.e., 17-10-2014 also.

The respondent has filed a counter-affidavit

wherein she has stated that in pursuance of Order, dated 17-04-2014, in CC.No.380 of 2014, the then Tahsildar, Nadendla, had conducted a fresh enquiry in June, 2014; that he was transferred to Prakasam District and was relieved on 18-06-2014; that she had joined in the said post on 18-06-2014 and continued as such upto 25-09-2014; and that on 25-09-2014, she was relieved on transfer as Tahsildar, Atchampet. It is further averred that the Deputy Tahsildar was appointed as the in-charge Tahsildar upto 01-11-2014; that on 2410-2014, the in-charge Tahsildar has issued an order/endorsement to the effect that the petitioner does not have clear title and ownership over the land in dispute; and that the petitioner has filed a civil suit viz., OS.No.884 of 2013, which is pending adjudication in the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chilakaluripet. The respondent has also expressed her regrets for the delay in passing the order.

The uncontroverted averments in the counteraffidavit filed by the respondent show that the in-charge Tahsildar has passed a fresh order after holding an enquiry as undertaken before this Court in CC.No.380 of 2014.

In view of the satisfactory explanation offered by the respondent for the delay in passing the order, no further action in this Contempt Case is needed. The

Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed and the respondent is discharged from the contempt proceedings.

______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 23rd January, 2015 LUR