THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.486 of 2014 Dated: 02.06.2014 Between:
Smt. Ch. Savitha .. Petitioner and Sri Mukesh Kumar Meena .. Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. V. Mallik Counsel for the Respondent: AGP for Revenue (Assignment) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 02.09.2013 in W.P.No.23379 of 2011.
At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) placed before this Court proceedings No.E6/11/5199/2011 dated 31.05.2014 of the Collector and District Magistrate, Hyderabad District, whereby he has provisionally allotted an extent of 300 square yards in Malkajgiri Village, Maredpally Mandal, to the petitioner, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. He has also enclosed a panchanama dated 31.05.2014, whereunder the plot was handed over to the petitioner, and a copy of G.O.Ms.No.253 Revenue (Assignment-III) Department dated 31.05.2014, whereby the State Government has approved the action of the Collector in allotting the land with a direction that necessary action for submitting regular alienation proposals to the Government shall be initiated immediately.
Mr. V. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner, has pointed out that the above-mentioned order of the District Collector contains a stipulation that the petitioner shall not alienate the land or make any constructions till further orders.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that this condition is stipulated purely as a measure of temporary arrangement pending approval of the action of the Collector by the State Government and that since the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.253 dated 31.05.2014, ratifying his action, regular proceedings will be issued as directed by the State Government in the said G.O., wherein this condition will not be imposed.
As the respondent has taken corrective steps by allotting the land to the petitioner in obedience to the direction of this Court, no further adjudication of the contempt case is needed.
The contempt case is accordingly closed.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 2nd June, 2014 IBL