Y

1 [32e6 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2946 OF 2025

Contempt Case filed Under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to

punish the respondents herein willful, disobedience, deliberate, unlawful, illegal action

the Orders of the High Court dated 07.04.2025 passed in W.P.No.10349 ol 2025.

Between:

U.Srinivas, S/o Late. U.Narayana, Aged about 57 years Occ. Business, Fl/o H No 2-

96 Gajularamaram Village, Qutubullapur Mandal Medchal Malkajgiri District.

...Petitioner

AND

1. SRI.R.V.KARNAN, S/o.Not known to the petitioner, Occ. COMMISSIONER,

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, (GHMC) Tank Bund,Hyderabad.

2. SRI.APURV CHAUHAN, Sio.Not known to the petitioner, OCC. ZONAL

COMMISSIONER, GHMC, Circle-25, Kukatpally Zone, Medchal Malkajglri

District.

3. SRI.MALLAIAH @MALLAREDDY, S/o.Not known to the petitioner OCC.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GHMC, Circle-26, Gajularamaram, Quthbullapur

Mardal Medchal Malkajgiri District. 500055

...CONTEMNORS/Respondents No. 10 to 12

in Main W.P. No. 1034912025

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. S. Srinivas Sridhar Rao

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Sri. K. Ravi Mahender Standing Counsel

for GHMC

The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HIGH COI'RT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT IIYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE C.V.BIIASKAR REDDY

CONTEMPT CASE No.2946 of 2o25

(CNR No. HBHco106 132720251

Date: O1..2026

Between:

U. Srinrvas. Petitioner

AND

Sri R. V. Karnan and two others Respondents

ORDER

This Contempt Case is hled by the petitioner under liections 1O to

12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 , alleging willful and deliberate

disobedience of the order dated 07.04.2O25 passed by this Court in

W.P.No.10349 of 2O25.

2. The pelitioner Iiled W.P.No.10349 of 2025 questioning the legality

and validity of the Joint Inspection Report dated 79 .O4.2t)24 in respect

of land admeasuring Ac. 1.37 guntas in Sy.No.298 situated at

Gajularamaram Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Medr:ha1-Malkajgiri

District. The grievance of the petitioner was that tl-re said Joint

Inspection Report was contrary to the earlier surveys conducted by the

Revenue authorities during the years 20Ol and 2019 and the

subsequent proceedings and correspondence dated 14.O7.2027. The

,,f:etitioner claimed that he and his family members were r possess.ion of

2

the subject land and that the authorities, without taling into

consideration the earlier suwey proceedings and the boundaries fixed

therein, were interfering with his possession and treating a portion of

the land as part of the municipal park.

3. In.the affidavit hled in support of the writ petition, the petitioner

stated that the subject tand in Sy.No.298 admeasuring Ac. 1.37 guntas

was being claimed by him on the basis of the revenue records and the

Occupancy Rights Certifrcate issued by the competent authority. He

further stated that surveys were conducted by the competent Revenue

authorities on 28.O4.2OO1 and 13.03.2019 and boundaries were fixed

on the ground in the presence of panch witnesses. It was also stated

that the Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, addressed letter

No.B/810/2O21, dated 14.07.2027 to the Revenue Divisional Officer,

enclosing the location sketch prepared by the Irrigation Department.

According to the petitioner, the said proceedings disclosed that the land

in Sy.No.298 admeasuring 9335 square yards was not affected by the

Full Tank Level of Pariki Cheruur, though an extent of 940 square

yards was stated to be partly affected by the buffer zone.

4- Having considered tl:e submissions made in the writ petition and

the material placed on record, this Court, on 07 .O4.2O25' passed the

following order:

('

3

" Notice belore admission.

Si L.Rauinder, leamed Assistant C,ouernment Plead.er for

Reuenue

takes notice for respondent Nos.1 lo g and seeks time to fil: counter

dffidauit. Si K. Rauimahendra, learned. Standtng Counse[ takes notrce for

respondent Nos.1O to 12. Si Laxmalla Sa.ndeep, learned Assistant

Gouemment Pleader for lrngatton tqkes nottce for respondent ,Yo.13 and

seeks time to get in-structtons.

Leamed counsel for

the. Petitioner ts permitted to take out persono'l

notttce to respondent No.14 bA Regtstered Post with Acknouled'tment Drc

and fite

proof oJ seruice before tle Regtstry bg the next date of hec nng.

This Wnt Petitton is filed praging thi.s Court to declan e the joint

Inspection conducted on 19.O4.2024 Jor the lands in Sg No.29B, Gajula

Ramaram Vtltage, qs i\egal, arbitrary and @ntrary to the provi: iotts oJ th.e

Telangana Surueg and Boundaies Act, 1923 and ttte R.LIes made

thereunder.

The case oJ the petitioners is th.dt theA are tl9 owners and

possessors of th.e land admeasuing Ac.1.37 guntas tn Sg.1[o:,. 145, 263

dnd 298, situated al Gajula Ramaram Vitlage, Qutubullap lr Mandal,

Medchal-Malkajgii Dstrict, laung acquired ttLe same tLvough OccllpdncA

Rights Centficate issued vide proceedings No.J/ 2003/ 2()O3, d.a.ted

27.11.2003. It is thg further case of the petitioners tlDt acttnll on their

dppticdtrcn, suruey has been cond.ucted by respondent No.7 and boundaries

hque been fxed on 13.0i.2O19 and panchanama uos drau n. It is ttle

furtlLer

c@se of th.e petitioners that respondent No.9, had ad.dre:;sed a letter

n"o.B/810/2O21, dated 14.07.2021 to respondent No.8-ReuenL e Dnsional

Off.cer, stating that the land in Sg.No.298 to @n ertent of Ac.1.37 guntqs

situated ot Galularamaram, i,s rearded in tLLe ndme of Mangc.h NaraAana

and location sketch prepared bg the Imgation Depdrtmenl is zn.closed. As

per the report of the Assi-stant EnEneer, Norlh Tanits Duision,

Secunderabad, the land in Sg.No.298 admeasuing 9335 square gards is

not alJected in FTL of Paiki Cheruuu but an ertent oJ 940 sqL qre

Aards is

partlA affected in bulfer zone of Paikt Ch-eruru. The giet'ance of the

petitioners is that Lxittaut tdking tnto con-sid.eration of the earlier two

suruegs and the boundaies fxed

thereon, the respondent aulhorities haue

forcibtg

occupied pqrt of the land of the petitioners and procee Ting uith the

constructton oJ municipaL park.

4

Since i, is staled. that the suruea has been conducted tuice and the

bound.aies have been fixed Jor

tlLe subject land in Sy.No.298 as per Letter

No.B/810/2021, dated 14.07.2021, tl'Le respondent authoities are directed

not to intArkre with the possession of tlrc petitioners ouer the land to an

exte of Ac.1.37 guntas in Sy.No.298 or dishtrb the boundaies fxed in

pursuonce oJ th.e inspection conducted bA tlv Asststant Engineer, North

Tonks Diuision, dated 14,O7.2021, in ang manner. Flr1h-er, the resPondent

autfu)rtties qre directed to maintoin slatus quo ouer the subject land in aLl

respects.

List on 16.06.2025.'

5. The grievance of the petiLioner in this contempt case is that

immediately after passing of the aforesaid order, copies thereof were

served upon the concerned authorities; in view of the earlier survey

proceedings, he had erected stones and kaddies within the boundaries

of the subject land; notwithstanding the subsistence of the order passed

by this Court, the GHMC officials, namely Sri Ramesh, ACP, Sri Tulja

Singh and subsequently Sri Somesh, entered the subject land on

1g.O4.2O25 and again on 07 .06.2025 and removed the stones and

kaddies erected by him; complaints were lodged before the

Commissioner, GHMC on 28.04.2O25 and 24.05.2025 and also before

the police; and a legal noLice dated 27 .O9.2O25 was aiso issued to the

respondents calling upon them to comply with the order of this Court.

6. This Court, on 07 .71 .2025, issued notice to the respondent Nos.2

and 3. Subsequently, as the notices were served and there was no

representation on their behalf, this Court, by order dated 23.01 .2026,

5

issued Form-I to respondent Nos.2 ard 3 and directed theil appearance

before this Court.

7. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the respondent Nos.2 and 3

entered appearance and filed their counter affidavit, inte.' alia stating

that the GHMC had commenced construction of the colnpound wall

around the park on 78.06.2024 after obtaining administr:.tive sanction

and that tJle construction was completed on O4.01.2025, rnuch prior to

the order dated O7.O4.2O25; after passing of the said order, the

petitioner attempted to erect stone kaddies in the are r claimed by

GHMC as park land; and upon recerpt of complaints dated 19.04'2O25

and o7.06.2025 alleging encroachment and erection of stc'ne kaddies in

the park area, the GHMC officials removed tlte same in discharge of

their statutory duties and for protection of municipal property.

8. Respondent No.2 thereafter hled an additional counter affidavit

dated 23.O4.2O26, reiterating the aforesaid stand and speciltcally

stating that the GHMC officials removed the stone kadclies erected by

the petitioner after the order dated O7.O4.2O25. Thus, the factum of

removal of the stone kaddies subsequent to the passing of tJ e order is

not in dispute.

9. The petitioner filed a rejoinder denying the defen<e taken by the

respondents. It is specifically contended that the respo rdents, instead

of approaching this Court for clarificaLion or modiltcation of the order,

\

5

took upon themselves the task of determining the alleged encroachment

and removed the stone kaddies noturithstanding the express direction of

ttris Court not to disturb the boundaries and to maintain status quo in

all respects. The petitioner further contended that the respondents' own

admission regarding removal of the kaddies establishes the violation of

the order of this Court.

10. During the pendency of the Contempt Case, respondent Nos.2

and 3 were directed to appear before this Court by issuing Form-I. On

20.02.2026, they did not appear arld this Court directed the

Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, to secure their

presence and produce them before this Court. On 23.02.2026,

respondent Nos.2 and 3 appeared in person and tendered unconditional

apolog, for their absence and sought time to file affidavits.

11. Thereafter, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed affrdavits tendering

unconditional apolory and explaining the circumstances for their

absence. By order dated 25.02.2026, this Court accepted the

explanation only for the purpose of dispensing with their personal

appearance until further orders, while making it clear that they shali

appear before this Court without fail upon receipt of aly further notice.

The said affidavits and the order dated 25.02.2026 relate to their

absence before this Court and do not constitute an explanation

7

absolving them of the alleged disobedience of the ,rrder dated

07.04.2025.

12. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.3 of 2026 seeking permission to

receive additional material papers i.e, survey proceedings, 'dllage maps,

photographs depicting erection and removal of flte kaddies,

representations submitted to the authorilies, corresponderce and other

documents in support of his allegation that the boundaries protected by

the order were disturbed after 07.04.2025. The said application was

allowed by this Court on 06.05.2026.

13. The question that falls for consideration is whether the action of

the responden[s in causing removal of the stone kaddies after the order

dated 07.04.2025 amounts to willful disobedience of the serid order.

14. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for L'-rc petitioner

submitted that the order dated 07.O4.2025 passed by this Courl is clear

and unequivocal ald specif-rca1ly prohibits the respondent authorities

from interfering with the possession of the petitroner over Ac.1.37

guntas in Sy.No.298 and from disturbing the boundaries 1-xed pursuant

to the inspection dated 14.07 .2027 . It is further subm itted that the

direction to maintain status quo in all respects was binding upon the

respondents and that the respondents admittedly remc,ved the stone

kaddies after passing of the said order. karned counsel v.,ould therefore

contend that the subsequent justification offered by tie respondents

e

that the kaddies were erected in the park area cannot be accepted, as

the respondents were required to approach t1lis Court if they were of the

opinion that the order passed by this Court was being misused.

15. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC

submitted that there was no intention to disobey the order of this Court

and that the GHMC offrcials acted only upon complaints received from

the residents' Welfare Associatjon and in the interest of protecting

municipal property. It is submitted that the compound wa.ll around the

park had been completed even before passing of the order and that the

removal of the kaddies was only intended to prevent alleged

encroachment into the park area. It is therefore contended that the

essential ingredient of willful disobedience is absent.

16. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and

perused the material on record.

1,7. There is no dispute with regard to the nature and scope of tlre

order dated 07.O4.2025. This Court specihcally directed the respondent

authorities not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over

land admeasuring Ac.1.37 gUntas in Sy.No.298 or disturb the

boundaries fixed pursuant to the inspection conducted by the Assistant

Engineer, North Tanks Division, dated 14.O7.2O21, in any manner. The

respondent autiorilies were further directed to maintain status quo

over the subject iand in all respects.

9

18. Admittedly, the stone kaddies were removed subsequ ent to the

passing of the aforesaid order' In fact' respondent No 2' in his

additional counter affrdavit, specifically admitted that rhe GHMC

officials removed the kaddies erected by the Petitioner after the order

dated 07.04.2025. Thus, the factum of removal is esta:lished not

merely from the allegation of the petitioner but also fronr the stand

taken by the respondents themselves'

19. The justifrcation offered by the respondents that the l:addies were

removed pursuant to complaints received from tie Welfart Association

cannot be accePted. Once thisCourt directed the resPondent

authorities not to disturb the existing boundaries and to maintaln

status quo in all respects, the respondents were bound to comply with

the said direction in letter and spirit lf they were of the view that the

petitioner had erected the kaddies in an area forming part of the GHMC

park or had otherwise acted contlary to the order, the appropriate

course was Lo bring the matter to the notice of this Court and seek

clarification or appropriate directions' They could not have unilaterallv

determined the alleged violation and taken steps whit:h resulted in

disturbance of the very boundaries protected by th': order dated

07 .o4.2025

10

20. ln Reena Rumarl and others u, Pra oeer Kumar and otherst,

the Hon'lcle Supreme Court observed as follows:

'17........The poluer to punish for ciul contempt is a Potent

mechonism explicitlg designed to seare public confidence in the

administration of justice. As this Couri lrcId tn Anll Rd,t4,n sd:tk4r a'

Htrak Ghosh ((2002) 4 SCC 21), once on order passed by a

competent court is clear and unambiguous, its implementation cannot

unrsta. witwSube anditionol upon a

disobedience signifies an act done uoluntaily tttith the intent to

disregard the lau."

In the present case, the order dated O7.O4-2O25 is clear and

unambiguous. This Court specifically directed the respondent

authorities not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the

land admeasuring Ac.1.37 guntas in Sy.No 298 or disturb the

boundaries fixed pursuant to the inspection conducted by the Assistant

Engineer, North Tanks Division, dated 14.O7.2021, tn any manner and

further directed them to maintain statu s quo over the subject land in all

respects. Therefore, the respondents were bound to comply with the

said directions and could not have acted contrary thereto on the basis

of their own understanding of the order. The plea that the compound

wall had been completed on O4.O1.2025 does not advance the case of

the respondents. The issue in the present Contempt Case is not

whether the construction of the compound wall was undertaken before

or after the order dated 07.04.2025, but whether the respondents,

' 2026 tNsc 642

11

subsequent thereto, disturbed the boundaries and status quo protected

bythesaidordcr'Therespondents'ownpleadingsestablishthatthe

stone kaddies were removed after the passing of tlte order' tt is equally

significant that the respondents have not placed before this Court any

order of this Court permitting them to remove the stone kaddies after

07 .O4 .2025. The complaints received from third parties, eve n if taken at

their face value, could not override the binding directron issued by this

Court. Administrative convenience or the perception o[ an officer

regarding the ownership or location of the land cannot be a ground to

drsregard an order passed by this Court.

21. The material placed on recorcl, therefore, establishes that the

respondents, despite having knowledge of the order dated 07 '04'2025,

permitted their officials to remove the stone kaddies erected by t1le

petitioner on 79.04.2025 and again on 07.06.2025 Th(r subsequent

explanation offered by tl.e respondents does not satisfacl.orily account

for the admitted act of removal. Such conduct resulted in rlisturbance of

the boundaries and status quo which this Court had specifically

directed the respondents to maintain.

22. The unconditional apologies tendered by responderit Nos'2 and 3

are confined to their absence before this Court pursuant to the Form-l

notices. The said apologies do not contain any unconditio 1al acceptance

of the violation complained of by the petrtioner, nor do they explain or

\

72

undo the admitted removal of the stone kaddies. Hence, the said

apologies cannot absolve the respondent Nos.2 and 3 of the

consequences arising from the disobedience of the order.

23. Having regard to the clear and unambiguous nature of the order

dated 07.O4.2025, the admitted removal of stone kaddies subsequent

thereto and the failure of tJ:e respondents to establish any lawful

authority for disturbing the boundaries protected by the said order, this

Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has established

willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 07.O4.2025 by the

respondent Nos.2 and 3.

24. Accordingly, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are found guilty of willful

disobedience of the order dated O7.O4.2O25 passed by this Court in

W.P.No.10349 of 2025 and are liable to be punished under Section 12

of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Insofar as respondent No.l is

concerned, no separate finding is recorded, as the proceedings in

Form-l were issued against t1.e respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the

materia.l on record before this Court specifically concerns tleir conduct.

25. In the result, the Contempt Case is allowed, sentencing the

respondent Nos.2 and 3/contemnors to suffer simple imprisonment for

a period of one (01) week and to pay a fine of Rs.2,0O0/- (Rupees Two

Thousand only) each, within three (03) days from today. In default of

payment of line, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall undergo simple

,+y

To,

13

imprisonment for a further period of three (03) days. The per'itioner shall

pay subsistence allowance as per Rules. The sentence of irnprisonment

is suspended for a period of one (01) week from today. Alter expiry of

the said period, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall surrender before the

Registrar (Judicial-l), High Court for the State of Telangana, to undergo

the sentence of imprisonment as stated supra. The resllondents are

directed to ensure strict compliance with the order d'ated 07 .O4 2025

passed in W.P.No. iO349 of 2025 and shall not interfere with the

possession of the petitioner over the subject land or disturb the

boundaries fixed pursuant to the inspection dated l4-O7 2O21, except

in accordance with any orders that may be passed in W.D'No' 10349 of

2025.

1. The Registrar (Judicial-l), High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad.

2. The Section Officer, O.S. Section High Court for the State of Telangana at

Hyderabad.

3. The Section Officer, Accounts Section, High Court for tre State of Telangana at

Hyderabad.

4. U.Srinivas, S/o Late. U.Narayana, Occ. Business, R/o F No 2-96 Gajularamaram

Village, QutubullapurMandal Medchal Malkajgiri District

5. SRI.R.V.KARNAN, Occ. COMMISSIONER, Greate" Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation, (GHMC) Tank Bund,Hyderabad.

6. SRI.APURV CHAUHAN, OCC. ZONAL COMMISSICNER, GHMC, Circle-25,

Kukatpally Zone, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

7. SRI.MALLAIAH @MALLAREDDY,

OCC DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GHMC,

Circle-26, Gajularamaram, Quthbullapur Mardal Medchal Malkajgiri District.

500055

B. One CC to Sri. S. Srinivas Sridhar Rao, Advocate [OPLC]

9. One CC to Sri. K. Ravi Mahender Standing Counsel for GHMC IOPUC]

10.Two CD Copies

Miscellaneous petitrons, pending if any, shall stand closed.

sd/. v. KAVITHA

/-

,--... Seuw

REGIsTRAR ,/

//TRUECOPY// i .\

'i ---

4

\i

'--

isecrtoN oFFlcER

\

.,t'

DI

HIGH COURT

CVBR, J

DATED: 0110912026

ORDER

CC.No.2946 of 2025

',1 t

1:

-

*

-.4

l

01

SiP

202t

io

)

*

ALLOWING THE CONTEMPT CASE

C\

@

1b

(