[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Gajapathi Reddy vs Sri. P. Ramachander on 16 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Contempt Case No.1013 of 2026
Date: 16.04.2026
Between:
Gajapathi Reddy. .....Petitioner
AND
P. Ramachander. ....Respondent
ORDER
This Contempt Case is filed alleging non-compliance of the order
dated 17.10.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.12711 of
2024.
2. This Court vide order dated 17.10.2024 disposed of
W.P.No.12711 of 2024. Paragraph 6 of the order reads as follows:
"6. In view of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of this
writ petition directing the petitioner to submit an application before the
respondents by duly enclosing the extent of share executed in the partition
deed and other documents as required under Sections 6 (1) and 6 (2) of
the Act and in the event of filing such application, respondent No.4 is
directed to examine the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with the Act."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in
compliance with the directions of this Court, the petitioner has
submitted a representation dated 12.02.2025 enclosing the relevant
documents and also submitted an application vide No.
TG01121526041155 dated 26.04.2025 in Bhu Bharathi portal. It is
further submitted that the Respondent/RDO has addressed a letter
dated 10.03.2025 vide No.A/2419/2025 to the Tahsildar, Maddur
Mandal to submit report and in pursuance of the same, the Tahsildar,
has submitted a report vide Letter No.B/1343/2025 dated
09.06.2025, but till date no orders have been passed by the
respondent. The learned counsel contended that inaction on the part
of the respondent amounts to willful disobedience of the orders of this
Court. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in
M.Venkataramana Hebbar (dead) by LRs vs. M.Rajagopal Hebbar
and others 1.
4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
for Revenue appearing for the respondent submitted that earlier, the
petitioner has submitted applications dated 08.07.2024, 09.07.2024
and 11.07.2024 in Dharani Portal seeking to issue pattedar passbooks
in respect of subject lands and in pursuance of the same, the District
Collector, Narayanpet, has examined the matter and passed orders
vide Proceedings No.D/3517/2024 dated 19.10.2024 rejecting the
claim of the petitioner and the copy of said proceedings is placed on
(2007) 6 SCC 401
record. It is therefore contended that there is no willful disobedience of
the order passed by this Court.
5. The relevant paragraphs of the proceedings No.D/3517/2024
dated 19.10.2024 issued by the District Collector, Narayanpet, are
extracted below:
"The Family Settlement Deed dated 25.12.1998 is not registered
document. The patta was already recorded in the name of (i) Venkat
Reddy S/o. Buchi Reddy, (ii) Gajapathi Reddy S/o. Buchi Reddy, (iii)
Yuddam Reddy S/o. Bal Reddy (iv) Basi Reddy S/o. yella Reddy and (v)
Ram Reddy s/o. Yella Reddy with separate Khathas. The Tahsildar is
competent under Section 4 of the Act to transfer the patta on application
intimating him about acquisition of right by succession, survivorship,
inheritance, partition, court decree or otherwise any right as owner and
Pattedar. The Tahsildar passed partition proceedings under Section 5 of
the Act basing on the un-registered Family Settlement Deed. In fact such
deeds need compulsorily registered under Section 17 of Registration Act,
1908.
Further it is stated that as per clarification rendered by Commissioner,
Survey Settlement & Land Records vide Ref. ROR (A)/225/1989 dated
01.06.1989 at Para No.3 (copy enclosed) that the Partition Deed need not
be registered however it shall be on stamp paper under Section 40 of the
Act. The alleged Family Settlement Deed dated 25.12.1998 is on a stamp
paper of worth Rs.50/- only for an extent of Ac.52.28 gts. The stamp duty
shall be @ 9% on the basic value during 1998. Therefore, it is not duly
stamped under Section 40 of Stamp Act and it is not valid for effecting
Partition proceedings. However, the then Tahsildar passed orders vide
Proc.No.B/1236/2003 dated 10.11.2003 without verification of rule
possession and therefore it is illegal basing upon which the patta cannot
be transferred to the name of the petitioner. When a document is disputed
by executants as fake, it shall be adjudicated by only Competent Civil
Court. The Revenue Court is not having powers to adjudicate upon such
issues.
Hence, the request of the application for issue of PPB-Court vide
reference 1st cited is recommended to reject.
In the reference 5th cited, the Additional Collector (Revenue), Narayanpet
basing on the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet and
considering the available records has proposed the request made for issue
of PPB-Court case to reject.
In view of the above, on verification of records and considering the
report of the Additional Collector (Revenue), Narayanpet, the grievance of
petitioner for issue of PPB-Court case in reference 1st cited is hereby
rejected."
6. Having considered the submissions made by both parties and
perused the record, it is observed that the Respondent has taken
action following the directions of this Court by initiating an inquiry
through the concerned Tahsildar. However, the District Collector had
already adjudicated upon the subject matter and rejected the
petitioner's request vide proceedings dated 19.10.2024. In
M.Venkataramana Hebbar's case (supra), relied upon by the
petitioner the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
"11. For the purpose of this case, we will proceed on the assumption that
the said deed of family settlement was not required to be compulsorily
registered, in terms of Section 17 of the Registration Act as by reason
thereof, the relinquishment of property was to take effect in future."
The aforesaid decision is not helpful to the case of the petitioner, as
the issue sought to be raised in this contempt case pertains to the
merits of the claim, which cannot be adjudicated in contempt
jurisdiction. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings issued by
the District Collector, Narayanpet, the remedy lies elsewhere in
accordance with law, but not by invoking the contempt jurisdiction of
this Court.
7. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that
no case is made out to proceed against the respondent under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
8. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. However, if the
petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings issued by the District
Collector, Narayanpet, he is at liberty to challenge the same before
appropriate forum, in accordance with law, if so advised.
_________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date: 16.04.2026
scs
