Telangana High Court
Pulakandla Venkat Reddy vs Estari Anitha Rani on 11 November, 2022
Author: P.Naveen Rao
Bench: P.Naveen Rao
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CONTEMPT CASE No.816 OF 2022
Date:11.11.2022
Between:
Pulakandla Venkat Reddy,
S/o.P. Bal Reddy @ P. Balaiah,
Aged 51 yrs, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o.Boduppal Village, Ghatkesar Mandal,
R.R.District (Old), Medchal-Malkajgiri District (New),
Telangana State & another
.....Petitioners
And
Estari Anitha Rani W/o.not known
Occu :Tahsildar, Office of Tahsildar,
Medipally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (New),
Telangana State & others
.....Respondents
The Court made the following:
-2-
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CONTEMPT CASE No.816 OF 2022
ORDER :
This Court by order dated 10.02.2021 made in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.2447 of 2021 issued directions to the Commissioner, Boduppal Municipal Corporation and Tahsildar, Medipally to conduct joint inspection supported by the village map and approved layouts and ascertain whether there was a pre-existing road which gave access to the Venkat Reddy New Friends Colony Owners Welfare Association and the same is sought to be deprived by adjacent colony people and submit report to this Court. The Tahsildar was also directed to coordinate with the Commissioner, Boduppal Municipal Corporation in conducting the joint inspection and to file report before this Court. The Commissioner was directed to ensure that no activity should be undertaken to remove the existing road and to deprive the ingress and aggress until further orders. Alleging that the said orders are not complied, this contempt case is filed.
2. Along with the counter affidavit deposed by Bonagiri Srinivas, Commissioner Boduppal Municipal Corporation, report is enclosed as directed by the Court.
3. From a reading of the report, it is seen that though original village lay out shows there is existing road, but over a period of time, the said -3- road was occupied and buildings have come up. Therefore, demarcating the road is not possible. It is further stated that there is 25 feet road in existence by which the colony people can access their residential houses and adjacent to 25 feet road, the land is identified for development of park. As the petitioners are opposing development of park and widening of the road to 40 feet, the park is not developed. Further in compliance of the order of this Court no activity is taken up for development of the park also.
4. In view thereof, it cannot be said that there is violation of the order of this Court much less willful and deliberate, warranting initiation of contempt proceedings.
5. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 11th November, 2022 Rds