HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.764 of 2014 Date:07.08.2014 Between:
Sri Siva Sai Constructions, a registered Firm, reptd by its Managing Partner- Sri A.Raja, S/o A.Mallaiah . Petitioner And:
Smt Smita Sabharwal, Collector And District Magistrate, Medak at Sangareddy.
. Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.Ram Mohan Counsel for the Respondent: GP for Revenue (Assignments), Telangana State The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order, dated 23.01.2014, in Writ Petition No.1467 of 2014.
The petitioner filed the above-mentioned Writ Petition to declare the alleged high handed and arbitrary action of the respondents therein including the respondent herein, in interfering with its possession and enjoyment of land in Survey No.203/4/1 of Kalvakunta Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District, covered by LP.No.1134/LO/20-SKP/HMDA/2011, dated 14.07.2011, as illegal and arbitrary.
This Court while ordering notice by order, dated 23.01.2014, directed the respondents in the Writ Petition not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the land admeasuring Acs.11.00 in Survey No.203/4/1. Alleging that the said order has been violated by the respondent herein, the writ petitioner filed this Contempt Case.
The respondent filed a counter-affidavit and also an additional counter-affidavit. The purport of both these counter-affidavits is that the subject land is a Government land; that the same was alienated in favour of M/s Allwyn Metal Works Limited, Hyderabad; that the said Company amalgamated with M/s Voltas Limited; and that the petitioner appears to have purchased the said land from M/s Voltas Limited. It is further stated that as there was violation of conditions of allotment, the Tahsildar, Sanga Reddy has issued notice, vide Lr.No.C/18099/2009, dated 30.06.2012, to the purchaser for converting the land from industrial to residential purpose; that to the said notice, the petitioner has submitted its reply on 16.08.2012; that after considering the said reply and following the due procedure, the Tahsildar has passed resumption order, vide Proc.C/18099/2009, dated 30.12.2013; and that possession of the land was also taken on 08.01.2014 and a board was erected on the land stating that the same belongs to the Government. The respondent has, however, stated that the subject land is vacant on ground and that no activity is being carried on the same and that in obedience to the interim order of this Court, the respondent did not interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the subject land or directed any of his subordinate officers to interfere with its possession.
In the light of the above-noted averments of the respondent, I feel it unnecessary to proceed with the Contempt Case. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the purported resumption order, it shall be free to avail appropriate remedy in order to question the same.
The Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed.
07th August, 2014 DR
JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA
REDDY