[ 32e6]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C'V. BHASKAR REDDY

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1563 0F 2025

Contempt Case filed Under Sections 10 lo 12 of Contempt of Courts Act'

lgTltopunishtherespondentshereinforViolatinganddisobeyingthedirectionsof

the High Court dated 18-02-2025 passed in W'P' No 4744 oI 2O25'

Between:

Nawab Mohd Yousufuddin Khan, s/o. Late Nawabwajiuddin Khan, aged about 69

VLri., O"" Landlord, Fl/o. H No. 1g-3-262t2t5 Jahanuma' Hyderabad

.'.Petitioner

ANO

Sri Koppula Venkat Reddy, S/o.Not Kngwn Ar{horized officer-cum-Revenue

oiri.ionrt officer, Land Reforms Tribunal, Attapur, Raiendranagar Mandal, Ranga

Reddy District.

. .. ResPondent

PetitionunderSectionsl0tol2ofContemptofCourtsActlgTlprayingthatin

thecircumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfilehereintheHighCourtmaybepleasedto

punishthe:.espondentunderthelolo12oftheContemptofCourtsAct,forwillful

wantonly, intentionally not obeying violated the orders of the Hon'ble Court in

W.P.No. 4744 of 2025 daled 18-02-2025'

Counsel for the Petitioner

Counsel for the ResPondent

The Court made the following

: Smt. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni

: GP FOR REVENUE

: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TI LANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAII REDDY

CONTEMPT CASE No.1563 of2O2)

Date: L6.O4.2O26

Between:

Nelvab Mohd Yousuhrddin Iihar.r Petitioner

AND

Sri Koppula Venkat Rcddy S/o. Not Known.

Authorized officcr- cum Ilcvenuc Divisional Ofhcer,

Land Reforms Tribtrnal, A tta pu r,

Rajcndranag:rr N{andal, Rzrnga Reddy District. Respondent

ORDER

This Contcrnpt Casc is filed by the pctitioner ;,r:king to punish

the responden t/ ('on tern lr o r (Revenue Divisional offir:L r under Sections

lO to 12 of tht: Conlempt of Courrs Act, l97l tor n,ilfir 1.,,, rt,antonly and

intr:ntionall1.. nor obel.ing the ordcr dated 1g.02.201.: passed by this

Court in Writ l)crirron No.4744 ol

,2025.

2. The pctirioner herein has filcd Writ petition

I (.4-i44 ol 2025

secking a dircctiorr to thc rcspondent to ) r;s orders in

C.C.Nos.W/80/75 and W /92175 in respect of L r rl erdmeasuring

4c.74.97 cents in Sy.Nos. 174 to lZ6, IZg, lg2, 1g3 zrrr, 154 situated at

Pe<lclashapur Vil)agc, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Fk ( ( y l)istrict. It is

the case of the pctirioncr tltat thc subjcct lands origtr i:llv belonged to

2

his predecessor and that the matter was remanded by the Land

Reforms Appellate Tribunal_cum-Il Additional District Judge, Ranga

Reddy District in L.R.A.No.1o of 2or2 datcd 04.04.20r7 for fresh

adjudication. Despite completion of hearing arrd reserving the matter For

orders on O2.71-2024, no orders r.l,ere passed by the respondent, which

constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by hling the aforesaid

writ petition.

3. This Court utcle order dated 18.02.2025 disposed of W.p.No.4744

of 2025 directing the respondent No.3 therein

/ respondent herein to

pass orders in C.C.Nos.W/80/75 and W l92l7S strictly in accordance

with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, u,ithin a period of six

(06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and to

communicate the decision to the petitioner.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that despite rhe aforesaicl direction,

the respondent lailed to pass orders rvithin the stipulated time and

therefore, the present ConLempt Case is fited.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

respondent has willfully and deliberaLely disobeyed the orders passed

by this Court in W.P.No.4744 of 2025. It is conrended that though this

Court, uid.e order dated 18.02.2025, directed the respondent to pass

orders within a period of six wceks, the respondent failed to adhere to

the said time frame and did not pass any orders even long after expiry

3

of the stipulated period. It is further submitted tLl.

having no other alternative, made a representation a

bringing to thc notice of the respondent the directic,r

Court and requesting carly compliance, buL the sam,: c

response. [t is contended that the conduct of thc re

demonstrate s lack of rr:spect to the orders of this Co'-t

-

intentional and u'illful disobedience. The learned cottn

submit that the proceedings dated 24.O2.2026, v'Yri-

upon by thc respondent, u,cre passed only after initi:

proceedings and issuancc of notice in Form-I by

Lherefore, lhe same cannot be treated as bona f.de

contended that the said proceedings dated 24.O2-2O2(

to escape the consequences of contempt, without exar

in proper perspective. The learned counsel ccr 1

respondent farled to consider the remand order passc,:l

2012 dated 04.O4.2O17, n,herein lhe earlier orders \,',

the matter u,as remitted lor ttesh adjudication. [l is t

that the respondent ignored thc documentary evidc r

pctitioner, including the allotment of the subject lanrl

petitioner's predecessor uncler the proceedings in C.li I

the su bsequent confirmatior1 of rights by the Hon'ble

this Courl. [t is further argued that the respondent l:

rcliance on earlier proceedings, which had already b:

I the petitioner,

rted 25.03.2O25

s issucd by this

i,1 not evoke any

;pondent clearly

,1nd amounts to

,r:l u,ould further

r are now relied

ir on of contempt

J-ris Court, and

'ompliance. It is

-"vas

issued only

ining the matter

reded that the

in L.A. R. No. 10 oI

re set aside and

r-lher contended

:(r placed by Lhe

in favour of the

o.7 of 1958, and

) Lvision Bench of

s rvrongly placed

n set aside, and

4

has proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner without conducting

any fresh enquiry as directecl. The learned counser submitted that the

respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction

by virtually sitting in appeal

over the orders passed by this CourL and by clisregarding binding

judicial pronouncements. It is also contended that thc respondent failed

to consider the report of thc Tahsildar ciatecl 23.11.2024, whicl,r clearly

indicated the factual possession and crassirrcation ot the rand, and

lhereby failed to {ake into account the relevanr material uhile passing

the order. The learned counscl argued that conduct of the respondent

clearly establishes that he has not complied u,itl.r the directions of this

Court in true spirit and is liable to bc punishcd under the Contempt of

Courts Acr, 1971 .

6 On the other hand, the learned Government pleader

for Revenue

has relied upon thc

submitted that there

respondent and that the present contempt case is misconceived. It is

contended that the respondent has duly complied wilh the directions of

this Court by passing cletarled orders in procecdings

No. LRW/223g,

2239,2455/2017 dated 24.02.2026. It rs lurther submitted that the

said order was passed after examining thc entirc record, including the

claims and objections of all concerned parties, and after aftording due

opportunity to thcm, and therefore, it cannot be saicl that there is non_

compliance ol the order of this Court. It is further submitted that the

counler alfidavrr iilcd b1the respondent and

on tJ're part of the

is no willfui diso bedience

5

delay in passing the order was neither intentional nrl

occurred due to administrative reasons and the complr

involved in thc matter, u,hich required dctailed

voluminous rccords and multiple claims. It is cor L

respondenl, being a quasi-judicial authority, was recir

various aspects including earlier proceedings, claims

anci statutory provisions undcr the Telangana Land F

thereforc, some delay occurred. tt is submitted that tl (

acted bona hde and in discharge of his offrcial duties r

no inLention to disobey the orders of this Court. It is c r

rcsponclent has great respect for the orders of this CoLi

s[eps to comply $.ith thc same by passing a reasoner]

it is pral,ed that thc contempt case may be dismissed.

7. Thc learned counsel for the respondent filed rc1;

petitioner and submittecl that the contentions raised 1r

are untenable and are onl1, an attempt to jusri i

disobedience o[ the orders of this Court. It is conten,l

compliance b5' passing the proceedings dated 24.02.

er eu'ash and does not amour.r t to compli.ance in tl-r,:

learned counscl su bmitted that compliance of a judir i

rezrl. effcctive and in accordance vvith the spirit of thc

bv the Cor,rrt, and not a mere formality. It is furthcr cc

respondent has completely ignored the scope of the re

deliberate, but

ity of the issues

e xamination of

rnded that the

ir-ed to consider

rl third parties,

:lorms Act, and

:espondenI has

nd that thcrc is

r[ended that the

t and has taken

rrder. Therefore,

r affidavit of the

'

the respondent

the deliberate

'rl that so-called

1,126 is only an

eye of law. The

Lr order musL be

l irections issued

rtended that the

rrand ordered in

5

L.R.A.No.10 of 2012, which rcquired frcsh adjudication of the matter

after considering the documentary evidence and affording opportunity

to all parties. Instead of undertaking such cxercrse, thc respondent has

simply relied upon earlier proceedings ancl rejccred the claim o[ thc

petitioner, thereby defeating the ver], purpose ol thc rcmand. It is also

submitted that the respondent has failcd to consider thc binding

hndings of this court in c.S.No.7 of 195g and thc subsequcnt orders of

the Hon'ble Division Bcnch, which clearlv establish thc rights ol the

petitioner over the subjcct rands. The learncd cour.rscr u,ould further

submit that the respondent,s order is sclf contradictory and suffcrs

from non-application of mind, inasmuch as it refers to certain

proceedings having attaincd finality, r,r,hilc at the same time ignoring the

fact that those very proceedings r,r,ere reopened and set aside by thc

appellate authority. It is also contended that thc rcspondent has failcd

to consider the proceedings of the Tahsildar darccl 2g.02.2026. rvhich

support the claim of the petitioner and recognizc his rights in thc

subject lands. Thus it is contended that thc concluct of the responclcnt

in passing the order only after issuance oI Form- I notice by this Court

clearly demonstrates that the respondent actcd u nder compulsion and

not in obedience to the orders of this Court. Such conduct amounts to

willful disobedience and undermincs thc autllority of this Court.

Therefore, it is prayed that the respondent may bc punished under the

provisions of thc Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

7

8. A carclul examination of the record wou < reveal that this

Clourt, i. W.P.No.4744 ot 2025, by order dated 1g.0.t 202S. directed the

r(':ipon(lenr hcrcin/RDO to pass orders in C.O I crs.W/g0/75 and

\,\'192175 strictly in accordance with law, as experlit cusi_v as possiblc,

prelerabh' r'ithi. a period or six (06) weeks from th( irte of receipt of a

copv o[ the orclcr. and to communicate the decisio -

:o the petitioner.

Admittedl]., rhc respondent has not complied witlL he said direction

u'ithin thc sLipr-rlated time. [n the present Contentp Case, this Court

alrle, ordt'rs d:rted I 7 lO.2O2i and 19. l l.2O2S isr; r:d .otice to Lhe

r('sponclc.t:L.il lht.rcafter, the matter ,"l,as adjour.,.,r se'eral times for

filing countcr. On 30.01.2026, this Court obsc

-

ing that despite

grirDtine sullcient time the respondent has not fll( ( counter affidavit

and that thc a itude of respondent is lethargic in cr r rplying the orders

ol'this ColLrt, issuccl notice in Form_l to the respor)(l nt ancl acljourned

rlrc case to 27.02.,2026. In pursuance of the order.; Cated 30.0I.2026

onlr. [hc rcsl)or]dent has filccl counter affidavit on 2( . )2.2026 enclosing

rlrt, c.p' ol orrit,r datcd 24.02.2026 in proccedings

N, t,RW/2 23g, 2239,

9. Tlrc relevrrnt paragraphs of the proceedings

No _RW 1223a, 2239,

2-l55/ 20 I7 <lart,d 2q.02.2026 issued by the re spc,r ( ( nr are extracterl

bt'lol:

24..

I 20 17

8

.ORDER

Perused the material on record and also the objcctions hlcd in this

case. During the course of enquiry before this Tribunal severa.l

claims and objections have been filcd, casc u,rse details are

enumerated below. Now the follorving questions have rarscd belore

this Tribunal, all thc questions such raiscd shall be ansrvercd point

wise:

Whether the subject lands werc ever part ol C.S.No.7/ 1958 as

alleged by the petitioner i.e, Nawab Mohd Yousuluddin Khan,

S/o-Late Nawab Wajihuddin Khan?

The Hon'ble High Court vide its orders in Application No.488 of

2Ol2 in Application No.519 of 2009 and Application No.24 ol 2024

in C.S-No.07 of 1958, dated:09-01-2025 have categorically observcd

that onc Smt.Sultana Jahan Begum, D/o. Latc Narvab Moinuddula

Bahadur has hled O.S.No.130/l ol 1953 for partition and separate

possession of thc Matruka Propcrtics specrhcalll, sho*'n in the

Schedules appended to the plaint, on thc file ol thc Cit), Ciril Court,

Hyderabad, which was later translerred to the file ol the I Iigh Court

and numbered as C.S.No.7 ot 1958.

Further the Hon'ble High Court in the same orders har.e also

observed that thc parties to the suit have filed memorandum of

compromise. An application namely Application No.126 ol 1958,

was hled praying to record compromise and to appoint ivl/s.Ra1a

Kishandas and Nawab Salecm Khan as Commisstoners / Rcceivers

with the powers set out in the memorandum of compromise.

Accordingly, a preliminary decrcc u'as passed on 06 04 1959.

Thcreafter, the Commissioners / Reccivers have affected thc

partition ol the lands as per the schemes and filed thcir rcport

dated: 20-12-1965 and afhdavit dated:20 09 1966 ir.r apphcation

No.205 ot 1966.

The Hon'ble High Court went on to enumerate the distribution

statement of the Commissioners / Receivcrs as mentiorlccl above.

Schedule A comprised of 254 items have been mcntioned, thc

subject lands in Sy.Nos.174 to 183 & 154 of Pcdda Shapur Village,

Shamshabad Mandal are never shorvn in this statemcnt b], thc

Hon ble High Court. The pctitioner herein has also submitLed copl'

of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Application No.125 of

1982 in C.S.No.O7 of 1958, dated: 16-11-1984. Claiming to bc the

final decree passed by the Honble High Court in respcct of the

subject lands in Sy.Nos.173, 174, 175, 176, 177, l7a, 179, lao,

181, 182, 183, total admeasuring Ac.74.97 Cents situated at Pedda

Shapur Village o[ Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. As

already discussed, supra the Judgment of Hon ble Hi€lh Court in

Application No.488 of 2Ol2 in Application No.519 o[ 20O9 and

Application No.24 of 2024 in C.S.No.O7 ot 1958, dated:O9 01 2025

is binding upon-all, and it s highly unlikcly that the subjcct Iands of

9

Pcdda Shupur Village arc part ol C.S.No.7 of 1958 as

petitione r herein.

As such all the material placed before this T:i ;

pcLitioncr hcrcin appears to be conceited and frauclr .

brought lonrard ior thc purpose of hling this presc I

c laimir-rg title 1n respect o[ thc lands through his far] t

Wa1iucldrr.r [(hatr.r on thc strength ol preliminary dec

tligh Cour t rn Applicatron No.104 of 1960 in C.S_Nc r

arlso undcr alrspLltc as [herc is n<l reference as to the ]

ol latc Iiirliuddrn in Lhe Schedule of Properties a'L

Preliminar dccr<,e rc[erred to above, but in the rt

Application No.335 ol 1962 in C.S.No.O7/ 1958 there

about Pedda Shapur Village in Sy.Nos. 171 to 183

Ac.80-00 qts \,hich is totalll irrelevart and fabricat l

purposc ol filrng present petirion, which is devoid ,r

deserves no consideration. Thrs answers the questicrr

2 /\clron on thc or(lers oi the LRAT_, itt lOl2ol2, dat,

Illccl br \auab Mohd Yousufuddin Khan, S/,r

Wajihuddir.r irhan.)

Since tlrc ordr.rs of Lhe LRT., dated:27-O5- 1!rl ,

r:hallengcrl several rimes in LRA No.2199 /77 , 1

27 | / 1991 &. 277 ,t 1991. dated: t 4 03- 1995 and in ar r

llon ble ll:gh Cour-L in CR.P.No.621/1979 & C.Mp N,.,.

r>l l9'/L) &. CRl,.No.2286l 1995 & 2676/1,996. The

Court l.rirs disrnissed the revision petilion by c..l

common olciel pt.rssed by the LRAT., passed in LRA N )

199.1. ThrLs, the orcier passed by the Land Reforms'

attainecl lln a lir v

rrmecl by the

rnal by the

':rt ald only

case. He is

'

late Nawab

r of Hon'ble

7 of 1958 is

resent lands

ched to the

rort iiled in

.; a reference

0 an extent

one for the

merits and

.o4-o4-20 t7

,atc Nawab

have been

o5-o7 t978,

iLI belore the

149 & 1350

Ion'ble High

i.rrmrng the

)71&277 of

rrbunal have

The LRAT. in irs judgment in lO/2O12 have cattlr

-rca]I_v

stated

lhat.... "'flre tppcllent has

Jited seueral doatments c, Ilotl,ble High

CaLtft ol A l). Detleulutq to lti-s nghfs in the disputed

tr)].)

\,r1A situatbd

rtl P<=clda Sltrtl.trrt tr age. He has not Jiled those d,octt nents before

the louter tribunal. He hlas directlg Jited this apD t I before this

cor.fl es tlrud pafig/ aggrieued Those documents are c lrc examined

ancl dectstott is ro be giuen. The petitioner u.tho t.: claining the

propeny bll ltrtuL' oJ tltc orders and decree of the Hcr, I h: High Court

slloll bL, r1rL.'r,,n oppoftunitA to aduonce his case an.t

.herefore

he

sLtorrl(l bc gl ert oltpotlLtnitlJ to appear before the lotu,:

.

ribunal and

corruas lris crtst, be,Jitre tlrc lou.rcr tibunal olong uitlL 1s (]ocuments.

7'lrr-s corrrl lteirvl ttppelktte autLtoitll agatnst the orde ". of lhe lou.rcr

lributtnl utrcl 1lp c[eun of tlLe appellant LLas not ad,;L,c t.uted by the

Lotuer coutl rutd tlrc appellant dlrectlA approached ttt: cout1 ft is rtt

case to r<,rttartd the tnotter to the louter tribwnl ru t t direction to

cortslr?er i,/r€, .ro.s(, of lhe nppeltant by giuing opptr UnttA to the

appellanl atrcl the otlter part!! and dispose of the same < ,i rrterits. The

trttth or otherwise of the documents Jited bg tt e appealing

cannot be d.ecided by this appellate tribunal o,n, I it is louer

10

tribunal th;lrt has tb tecord the euid'ence oJ ttle oppello'nt'

iiir in" ao."rnent's o;nd decid'e the case afresh for

giuing ang

';;^pii;"

b the properties claimed bg the appellant'

IL is an undeniable fact that the then LRAT

'

in its judgment in

W /aOl75 eW lg2l75, dt:15 07-1994 have held that as per original

fil:;-i"; No H/'8457/65 ol the lhen Rcvenue Divrsional ofltcer'

Cn"r"tt, D"ilision (This is a file whcrein 38 A u'as granlcd o\cr thc

r;;;; lands in favou r oI the Late Protccted TerrzrnI Sri'

B"f,'*..rlrfr) it is clearty mentioned that thc Paltcdar Ratiuddin

died and LRs in title goL mutated the subject land in S-yNo202 Old

,rJ N"* 172 to I83, admeasuring Ac 171-16 gts ofShapur Kalan

Irrlg" i., their favour uv

-

lrre

then

latrlt{ar

mutation

i.Eitaiqzttg65. The Tenani Eshwaraiah entercd into agrcement

.i"-# f.. Rs.10,0OO/- from the LRs of Pattedar Sri Rafeeuddin and

a ccrtificate on stamp paper of Rs 3OO/-

"vas

issued to thc tenarlt'

;.

-";;h

the tenant- have accrucd the rights o[ pateddar'

irU."q"L",fy Eshwaraiah s wife Smt satvamma & son Jai l{ind

filcd declaration before the LRT

'

Further as per Sec 5 o[ the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural

Lands Act, 1950.. "A person laufullg cultittating any lartd belongittg

li'o).ii"r' p.rton shail be deemid to be a tennnt if such lcrnd is ttot

'Jutnrir"a

personallg bg the tandhotder and iJ such per'sor1 is nol'

Personsd.eernedtobetenants.[ActNo.XXIofl95o]9(a)anembet

of the tandholder's familg"

As such the 38-A issued by then Revetrue- Dir'isional Oflicer has

attained hnality. Hence ihi"'Ttib'nul is of the opinion that thc

:;il; oi tr,e' petitiot'er to deleted the subject lands from thc

holdings of Smt Satyamma & Jai Hind deserves no consideration'

This answers the question '

3. Are the implead petiLroners Mir Mohd AIi Khan' Mir^Jalfar AIi Khat.t

& Smt.Zaheerunnisa

Begum eligible for:rny relref if so' to rvhat

extent?

As seen from the preliminary decree it.t O S No 0g/1966' datcd:

17 -O4-lg7O on the hle ot tne tt'eaat

'

Chict District Judge' Citv Civil

i.".i, iiva.*tai on which Gesc implead petitioners are relving' it

i.;;; ih", I-ate Kulsumunnisa Begum' W/o Jabandar Ali Khan

tras hled the suit ror aecta.aiion that tlhe plarntiff therein is the heir

of late Mir Wazeer Ali khan lfuown as

"A'saJ Yarvaral Mulk" and be

;;;i;; ;" owner o[ the proDertics The said o S No

g of 1966 rvas

,riJiivl;; Hon'ble High Court tn CL cA No Sl / 1s7 r and s,mc

;"";;;."'.; [.t"ed bv the Apex Court in SLP No

-227l

1976 As such

.L^., L-,,a narfccted rf,eir tiile ut d

't''in"d

finaliry' Thcse implcad

#',it"""."'n""" iii"a

""tt"it'

documents in which-.there are no

[:;';;r;;;;ti""

or

ptaJ" Shapur village are mentioned and thc

Civil Court order is for grave yard'covered by an extent Ac 2-00 gts

-

*fti.f, the Archaeolory

Dept

'

was madc party

11

Hcnce thc irnpleacl pctitioncr have only perfected thr:ri :Laim lor an

extcnt Ac./ 26 gts in Sy.No.182 o[ Pedda Shal;Lt Village of

Shamshabacl lvtanclal. The same has also been conJ.r rred by the

then Tahsrldar in fiie No.D/.180l20lL, dated:30 l.- :1013. This

z 'rswers the (llles tior.r

4. Arc [hc Rcspondents Chennirkesha Anjaiah, S/o.C.]4 ttlesh & (5)

Others are clrqiblc ior anv relrei-? Are the Respondents ( I'rennaboina

Krishr.ia Yacltrr. S/o.Late C.S:r1.anna Yadav & Jagan l\1 lran Reddy,

S/o Late R Iilishnii Rcddr, :rrc c,ligible for any reliefl)

C)n pen-rsal ol thc documents submitted it was obsr,r t d that one

Chennakeshzr Sathaiah had pnrchased the lands bear r e Sy.No.176

(6-00), Sy.No 17711 3Ol & 178(10 3l), rotal admeasu lg Ac.21-2i

gts situated .rl Ped.la shapur Village, Shamshabad \li rda1, Ranga

Reddv DisLricr from rccordc:d pattedar Mohd Rafiu J l.n through

unrcgistcrr'd sirlc dccrl abolrt 55 years back and hi namc was

rncorpor.]lrrl llr ti)( pithautrcs lrom 1964 in posses,. cn column.

Subscrluc.ntlr rher hrrrc lllc(l perpctual injunction au I rectification

o[ rccords bclolc the Sr.Civil Judgc, R.1: )istrict ln

O.S.No.35O/2003 ancl the saici suit has been decre: t on 22-04-

2004 Funhc| arrothcr surt for declaraLion of title r I cl perpetual

irrjunction u,ls Iilecl ergainst original pattedar in O.S Il, .1294/2OO4

in respect ol land in S,r..Nos.l77 (L- 23) & 178 13-24), ctal Ac.5-07

gts r.r'hich n;rs also <lccreed ir.r lavour of them on 22 '.1-2OOS. Yet

anothcr surt in O.S No 1-1.12l2004, dared:30-07-200'/ t :s ajso been

decrcccl in thcil lavoLrl ior larrcls in Sy.Nos.177 (l -24) ,t, l7A$-231.

On pcrursal of the documents submitted by Chenn.r I tna Krishna

Yaclar', S/o.Late C.Sarr anna Yarclav & Jagan Mohal Re,l L-\,, S/o. Late

R.Krishna Rcddy it is obserrcd rhat he holds agreeme I cf sale over

the sr.LbjecL lar.rds in S\.nos 182 & 183 admeasuring i,:.15 30 gts

from thc LRs o[ rlrc rrliginirl Partedar Late Rafiuck i r Khan and

requcst to rli.lete tlrc saicl holding lrom the holdir Ly s of Nawalr

Yosulr.rddin Iiha].r. f'Ltrthcr the respondent Jagan t,t han Reddv,

S/o.l-ate R.lilishna Rt cld-\, pr.rlr:hased lands in Sy.N(, I 'ti(6

OO) and

Sy.No I82{5 ()O) tor.J admeasuring Ac_11 00 gts of l, c.da Shapur

Villagc lrorn Su.(l..lai IIind ancl others through Un I.r 3istered sale

deed documcrrt cliltccl:22 07 "1989. Further the then : recial Grade

Deputy Collq:tor & Rcvcnuc Divisional Officer, Ctrt I :lla Division

havc passccl orclcr s U/s. I0(+) of APLR(COAH), , r, 1973 in

CC.No.W/80/75 & \,/92l75, dated:28-07-2008. vherein rhe

Tahsild:rr. Shams].ral:acl Marndal was ordered to

posscssion ol lhc sultject lzrr.rds to an extent A(.

inclutling lands in S-r,.No.176 ({r 0O), Sy.No.17714 3C\

total adme,arsurrng Ac.2 1-2 I gts situated at pedda

s

Subsequentl., rhe Tahsildar ita\e taken over the poss,

Iands and rssued FORM X in hle No.Bl492l2OOa,

2009. Hencc attainecl finalitv. This order of the LIt'

been challcnqr:d rill ditre.

: il ovcr the

I r'l 6.1 Cents

r 178(10-31),

r q;ur Village.

s ;.on o[ these

c rted: 13-O7-

' have never

12

5

Now taking into consideration the request oi these persons to

delete lhe lana in Sy.no.t76 (6 OO), Sy.No.177(4-30) & 17e(1O 31),

tota-l admeasuring Ac.2l-21 gts situated at Pedda shapur Village,

Shamshabad Manda.l from the holdings of Smt.Satyamma & Jai

Hind is aJfected by thc Sec.17 (1) of the Telangana Land Reforms

(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the sale execuLed after

the notilred date i.e., 24 Ot-1971is null ar.rd void. Even though thc

petitioner claims lo hled several suits for dcclaration oI titlc and

injunction, all these Civil cases were against the original declarants'

the Au'.horized Olficer, Land Reforms, Ranga Reddy District nor the

Land Reforms Tribunal Cum Revenue Divisional Olficcr were ncver

made party to these suits hence any ordcrs passed behind the back

of offiiial icspondents in these have no bearing over this Tribunal'

Hence the claims of these respondents are hereby rejected'

Whether the claims put forth by LRs ie, G Prcm Chand, S/o late

Eshwararah of original declarants descrves an)' consideration?

The claims and objections ot the original declarants and thcir LRs

were alrcady discussed and assailed by the LRAT , & Hon'ble High

Court on several occasions. The contention of the declarant i e , that

her elder daughter is also eligible for allotment of tand, lhe

declarant i.e, Smt.Sathyamma has already put forth the similar

contention betore the LRAT., and same as discusscd by the LRAT at

para No.2 in its order dated:15-07 1994. The declarant have

contenrled that her husband has died during thc year 1966 and

therelore the rights that arise by virtue of thc provisions o[ the

Hindu Succession Act, in favour of his sons and the widow are to be

ascertained, the LRAT., in its above order have already taken into

consideration the contention of the declaralt ar-rd decided that the

as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, i956 the entire

holiings oi lot" S.i.G. Eashwaraiah is dividable cqualll' among his

.o.,"

^",-ld

the deceasecl, the share that would fell to the deccased

will have Lo be again divided equalty among the wtdow, and the sons

& daughters of ihe deceased Accordingly, the LRAT , has already

consid;red the LRs of the deceased i.e , (0a) sons (02) daughters

and (0 i) widow and only after concluded thcm to be holding excess

land ol 2.7734 SH., which has attained finality then As such this

tribunal dccides that Lhe present ctaims / objcctions fi1ed by

3.Prem Chand, S,/o.late Eshwararah deserves no consideration'

Hence Rejected.

ln view of the above the a-ll the questions such raised before this

Tribunal have been answered. The fotlou'ing subject lands to an

cxtent 2.774 SH., which were already have been declared surplus

by the Land Rcforms Tribunal in C.C No W/80/75 & W 192175'

S;lected and taken over possession by the Tahsildar attained

finatlty in the year 2O09 and these orders of the Land Reforms

Tribuna-I desen'es no amendment. The Tahsildar, Shamshabad

il";;;i i" hereby directed to protect the subject Government lands

13

lrom encroachment and initiate steps to include the s;l-redule suit

properties in Prohibitory Iist of 22-A.

Sy.Nos Wet/ D ':

I53

154

i 55

i57

159

Dnr

Dry'

Dr'.

Dr.

Dr,

Dr'.

Chon dergucla

Village,

Shamshabad

Mrndal

PecLcl.r Shapur

Villagc,

Sham shaltacl

N4a nda l

l

1

I

t62

160

L 58

174

175

176

178

r83

ta2

Dr,,.

Drl

16.70

6.08Drt'

Total

Drr

Dr,'

Drl

Drt

Dr.

Dr',

154

Dr',

D.l

Totai

G.Tot l

10. A perusal of thc aloresaid proceedings dated 2z.r-)2.2t026 would

disclose that the rcspondent has not undertaken the e < :rcise mandated

under the remand order passcd in L.R.A.No.lO of 2rl I l. The appellate

authority had spccilically dirccted fresh adjudicatirtn .rpor

affording

t77

Mandal/Vi[age

r56

Extent

Ac.Cents

I 1.03

10.70

5.3 8

t2.13

6.30

7. l5

7 .20

42.67

7.73

1i.54

9.9 t

4.63

10.70

10.33

10.68

9.45

7 4.97

t57.64

1_4

opportunity lo all parties and on due consideration of the documentary

evidence placed on rccord. Hou,ever, the order passed by the respondent

reveals that he has subslantially relied upon earlier proceedir-rgs, u,hich

had already been set asidc and proceeded to rccord flndings as though

such proceedings had attained finality. Such an approach is clcarll-

impermissible and contrarv lo the very scope ol remand. The order does

not reflect any meaningful consideration of the documentary cvidcnce

placcd by the petitioner nor does it disclosC independent application of

mind to the issues involved. On thc contrary, the llndings recorded are

based on erroneous assumptions and misrcading of binding judicial

pronouncements. The respondent has also failed to appreciate the legal

effcct of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.6240 of 1978,

whercby the claim ol protecled tenancy in favour of Eshu,araiah was set

aside, thereby renderir-rg any subsequent transactions or claims flou'ing

therelrom unsustainable . Further, the material on record, including the

procecdings in C.S.No.7 of 1958 and Lhc reports o[ the Receiver-cum-

Commissioner, clearly indicate that the subject lands formed part of the

estate allotted to t-he petitioner's predecessor. The respondent, hou'ever,

has brushed aside such material without assigning valid reasons and

has arrived at conclusions rvhich are not only inconsistent but also

contrary to the record. Thus, the proceedings suffer from patent

illegality, non-application of mind and disregard to binding dircctions.

15

I 1 . F rom thc above, it is cvident that the resl rr nderrt, though

fllnctioning as a quasi-judicial authority, has failed to i ( t in accordance

with larv and has not givelt due effect ro the t LtrdirLg juclicial

pronouncemenls as \.ell irs tl.rc directions issued r) th€ appellate

authoritr'. The rcasorring i,issigncd in the impugncd ltrr ceerlrngs is not

onh' inconsistent but also sclf,contradictory, inr rreuch as the

respondent simultaneoush, relies upon earlier procr:t r ings as having

attai.(id finalitr,. ,.,,'hilc ignori.g the fact that thc ver1, si 1te

1:rocecdings

lr.crc reopened arrrl sct asiclc in L.lt.A.No. l0 ol 2O12. Srr tt contradictory

reasoning renders thc decision unsustainable in thc

,rre

of law. The

respondent is expectcd to adl r-rd icate thc matter ,t I :sh within the

parameters of thc rettand ordcr, but instead has adop, :d an approach

ri hich defeats th(, \,el-J purpose oI remand.

).2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in p trsuance of the

directions issucd in thc ordcr d.rtcd 2l.Ot.2O2S in W.F,. I,r. l55O of 2025

and in thc ordcr dz ed 27.O2.2026 in C_C_No.3l ,,( ot 2025. the

Tahsildar, Shamshaberd has isstrcd proceedings vidr lo.l3l223l2O2S

dated 28.02.202(r. u,h<'rein it u.as ordered as follou,s:

"ln vieu of rrr discussron Supra the r,r,rit petitioners ir: th,r l€gal

l.teirs o[ Lzrtc Mohammcd Wajhr Uddin khan who v.:.; dcfendalt

No.9 in C.S 7 ol 1958 which u,as closed on 9th J:rnuzLr, i025 by the

Hon ble High Lourt rvhe reby items to 229 of Schedul_, 1 was held to

be free from any encumbrances and there was lr irection for

passing final decrce interms of the preliminan. e:crer:. And

defendant No.9 was allottecl Sy.Nos. tzi to ig3 ;l I eddershapur

Village, Shamshabad Manclal as per the report of th:, r

,r:eivt,r

dt:7

12-1964 r,ick: Application No.335/ 1962 and as pcr i r: allotment

letter dt;31 l2 196S and also under Apptication I c .12:rlif.a2

16

dt:16-1 1-1984 a palchanama conducted by Receiver_Cum

commissioner ard constructive possessiotl u,as given under a cover

of Pal-rchanama with Sketch Map and Dcmarcitions and specific

boundaries.

f!-e tala surrendcred by Late G.Eshrvaraiah of the land belonging

to Third parties has no relevance and cannot be binding on the real

owners of thc propertics u-rthout $,hose krrorvledge the proceedings

underwent. As per the orders passcd in L.R.A.1O;f 2Ol2 Dt:O4 04-

2OI7 rn rcspect of Sy.Nos. 174, l7S, 176, I7A, lg2 & 183, rhe

surrender procecdings were ser aside, And further the remarning

land was not Ceiling Surplus but u,as claimcd by somc Third peirlics

as mentioned above u.hose claims have b€cn rejected as mentioned

above.

Therefore I am of thc vierv that the writ petitioners names have to

be incorporatcd rn Lhe Revenue Rccords (Bhubharati) as being the

9wn9rs

of the land as per thc orders of thc Hon,ble High Couit in

C.S.7/ 1958 vidc Applicarion No. 125/ 1982 dt: I6- 11_ 1984 which

arc the final decree proceedings containing the schedulc of

properties along with the S-v Nos and Boundaries mentioncd as

schedule A2R and also as per the final orclers passed on Dt:Og_01

2025 betore the Division Bcnch purring an end ro C.S.O7/ t9S8

Litigation in respect of Item No. From 1 to 229 of the suit schedule.

These properties \!-ere part ol ltem No.4 of schedule

,,A',

of the suit

schedule in C.S.07/ 19.58 and thercby thc said order is required to

be implemented as per the dircctions of rhe I{on ble High Court.

AII the third party claims through Late G.trshwaraiah ald his legal

heirs (Sathyamma and Jaihind) and various other persons claiming

through them o[ purchase on the basis of protected

Tenancy of Late

G.Eshwaraiah is found to be untenable as there are no protected

Tenants in respect of Sy.Nos.l72 to 183 of pcddashapur

Villagc,

Shamshabad Mandal at any point ol time and even if thcre are any

transactions thcy are hit by Sec-52 ol the Tra_nsfer of

property

Act

1882, and they become null and void as per Lau,. This order is being

made by this authority kecping in view of the directions ol the

Hon'ble High Court enunciatrng [hc rights ol the parties in various

proceedings and also keeping in ,,,!eu o[ thc legal principle this order

is passed to meet the ends ot.justice.

I[ any party is aggrier.ed b1. this ordcr they arc entltlcd to seek

appropriate relief/ remedy in accordancc with law available to them

within the staturory period,

Necessary entries are made as per Bhubharati ROR Act 2O2S in

accordarce with the Law."

t

L7

13. It is pertinent to note that the Tahsildar, Sh: nshabad, in his

proceedings datcrt 28.02.2026, has categorically recc,gr i.zcd the rights of

lhc pctitroncr o('r thc subject lands, in terms o[ [hr ,r.clcrs passed by

this Court in C.S.No.07 ol 1958 vide Apptication No

,.j

ol 19g2 dated

16.II.198.1. and has conscquently directed inrr r;oration of the

pe[itioner's name in thc rcvenue rccords [Bhu Bhar: il in accordance

\,ith the final dccree proceedings dated O9.01.2025 r

-.S.1,1o.7 of l95g

and subsequent orders of this Court. Honever, tllr :espondent has

trlken a diametr-icalh. oppositc vicu, u,ithout assignrr q an), cogent or

tenable reasons for discarding the said procecdings. j

rch an approach

clearly reflects lr on-applicatior-r of mind and arbitrar.r >:crr.se of quasi-

j udicial power.

14. Articlc 215 of thc Constitution of India statc; r.hat every High

Court shall bc a court o[ record and shall have all th,. 1611,s1s of such a

Court including rhe power to punish for contempt .: itself. The said

I)ou'er ls not onl\-constitutional but also inherent, m(,. tt to ensure that

the authoritv o[ this Court rs upheld and its orclers ir] obo\.ed in both

lcttcr and spirit. Rule 27 of the Contempt of CoL rts llules, lggO

cmpowers this Clourt to pass such orders as the jrt;tice of the case

rcquires. Thus, u hcn a part),, morc particularly a pirlr o authority, fails

to compl;, irh rhc directions of rhis Court in true s ) rit, this Court is

dut1, bound to exercise its jurisdiction to uphold the I I resty of law. The

Hon'blc Suprt'me Court and this Court in several ca , na of judgments

18

held that consideration means it should be in true sprrit applying mind

to the facts of the case. Simple rejection without applying mind does not

amount to compliar-rce of the order. Mere formal or mechanical

compliance, without proper considcration. w.ould ,ot amount Lo

compliance in the eye of law. The Hon,ble Supreme Court in SEBf us.

So,hara Ind.ia ReaI Estate Corpn. Ltd.,t held as follons:

"35. Sufficient opportunities have bcen gi'en to the contemnors to

fully comply with those orders a,rd p.rge thc contcmpt commltted

by them but, rather than availing o[ the same, t]tey have adopted

various dilatory tactics Lo delay the rmplemcntation of the orders of

this Court. The non compliance with the orclers passed by this

Court shakes the very loundation ol our judicial systcm and

undermines the rule of law, rvhich rtc are bound lo honour and

protect. This is essential to maintain lruth and confidence o[ the

people of this country in the 1udiciary,."

15. In the present case, it clearly demonstrates that respondent has

failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court in W.p.No.4744

of 2025 in true letter and spirit. The pur.ported compliance by way ol

proceedings daLed 24.02.2026 cannot be accepted as valid compliance

in the eye of law, as the samc is vitiated by lack of proper application of

mind ald is in clear deviation from the clirections issued by this Court

as well as the remand order of the appellate authority. The conduct of

the respondent in not adhering to the time stipulated by this Court and

in passing the impugned proceedings datcd, 24 .O2.2026 only after

' 1zor+1 s scc azs

19

initiation of contempt proceedings and issuarce of :

unmistakably establishes willful and deliberate d L:

apolog-v tcndered b1' lhe rcspondent does not insprr:

appears to be a mere attempt to avoid the consequr:t'.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion th;i

has commitLed civil conlempt. Accordingly, the resu

guilty for violation of thc order dated 18.02.2025 pass

in W.P.No.4744 of 2025 and he is liable to be punislt

12 of the Contcmpt of Courts Act, 1971.

16. In vieu' of lhe findings recorded above and rr

pou,ers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitu r

Rule 27 of the Contempt of Courts Rules, 1980, tc, r

jusrice and to ensure the majesty of law is uphel,j

No.LRW/2238. 2239, 245512017 dated 24.O2.2O).r>

respondcnt/RDO are hcreby sel aside. Further, har L;

conduct of the respondent and to ensure fai

-

acljudication, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy Dist:

withdrau, the matter from the h1e of the respondcni

same to another competent Revenue Divisional Offi,:l;

Officer shall reconsider the matter afresh and pass a

I

strictly in accordance with the orders of this Court ;r

2O25 and the rcmand order passed in L.R.A.No. 10 I

;tice in Form I,

c,bedience. The

r:onfidence and

cs of contempt"

lhe respondcnt

,ndent is found

'rl by this Court

i under Section

:xcrcise of the

r n ol- India and

r(--et [he ends of

the Proceedings

issr-Leci by the

g regard to lhe

ani impartial

:t, is directed to

rnd cntrusL the

The concerned

propriate orders

'W.P.No.4744

of

20 12, lr,ithin a

20

period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt ol a copy of the order

ard communicate the decision to the petitioner.

17. In the result, the Contempt Case is allorved sentencing the

respondent/contemnor

to suffer imprisonment lor a period of one (01)

month and to pay a Iine of Rs.2,000/ (Rupces Tr.r,o

.t_housancl

only). In

default of payment of fine, the respondent shalt undergo simple

rmprrsonment for a further period of tu'o (o2) rveeks- Thc petiLior.rer shall

pay subsistence allowance to the responclent, as per Rules, during thi

period of detention of respondent in civil prison u_ithin tu.o (02) r,veeks

from today. The sentence of imprisonment is suspcnded for a period of

two (O2) weeks from today. After expiry of sairl pcriod of tr.r,o (02) u,eeks,

the respondent shall surrender belorc the Re€listrar (.ludicial I), High

Court for the State of Telangana, to undergo sentcnce of imprisonment

as stated supra

Miscelianeous petitions, penrling if an1., shall stand closecl

//TRUE COPY//

SD/- N.SRIHARI

DEPUTY REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

6

To

1 . The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District_

2. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at

Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. One CC to SMT. JYOTHI ESWAR GOGINENI, Advocare IOPUCI

4. Two CD Copies

BA

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1610412026

ORDER

CC.No.1563 of 2025

d

ALLOWING THE CONTEMPT CASE

"t,

d

t1-.

t6A

I\o

(;

U

s

I $

\

(1

H 1-l

11

I

I

I

,.t'.

)