Telangana High Court
Nawab Mohd Yousufuddin Khan vs Sri.Koppula Venkat Reddy 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.1563 of 2025
Date: 16.04.2026
Between:
Nawab Mohd Yousufuddin Khan. .....Petitioner
AND
Sri Koppula Venkat Reddy S/o. Not Known.
Authorized officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer,
Land Reforms Tribunal, Attapur,
Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ....Respondent
ORDER
This Contempt Case is filed by the petitioner seeking to punish
the respondent/contemnor (Revenue Divisional Officer) under Sections
10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilfully, wantonly and
intentionally not obeying the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by this
Court in Writ Petition No.4744 of 2025.
2. The petitioner herein has filed Writ Petition No.4744 of 2025
seeking a direction to the respondent to pass orders in
C.C.Nos.W/80/75 and W/92/75 in respect of land admeasuring
Ac.74.97 cents in Sy.Nos.174 to 176, 178, 182, 183 and 154 situated at
Peddashapur Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is
the case of the petitioner that the subject lands originally belonged to
2
his predecessor and that the matter was remanded by the Land
Reforms Appellate Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga
Reddy District in L.R.A.No.10 of 2012 dated 04.04.2017 for fresh
adjudication. Despite completion of hearing and reserving the matter for
orders on 02.11.2024, no orders were passed by the respondent, which
constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the aforesaid
writ petition.
3. This Court vide 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/92/75 strictly in accordance
with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within 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 the aforesaid direction,
the respondent failed to pass orders within the stipulated time and
therefore, the present Contempt Case is filed.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondent has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders passed
by this Court in W.P.No.4744 of 2025. It is contended that though this
Court, vide order dated 18.02.2025, directed the respondent to pass
orders within a period of six weeks, 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 that the petitioner,
having no other alternative, made a representation dated 25.03.2025
bringing to the notice of the respondent the directions issued by this
Court and requesting early compliance, but the same did not evoke any
response. It is contended that the conduct of the respondent clearly
demonstrates lack of respect to the orders of this Court and amounts to
intentional and willful disobedience. The learned counsel would further
submit that the proceedings dated 24.02.2026, which are now relied
upon by the respondent, were passed only after initiation of contempt
proceedings and issuance of notice in Form-I by this Court, and
therefore, the same cannot be treated as bona fide compliance. It is
contended that the said proceedings dated 24.02.2026 was issued only
to escape the consequences of contempt, without examining the matter
in proper perspective. The learned counsel contended that the
respondent failed to consider the remand order passed in L.A.R.No.10 of
2012 dated 04.04.2017, wherein the earlier orders were set aside and
the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication. It is further contended
that the respondent ignored the documentary evidence placed by the
petitioner, including the allotment of the subject lands in favour of the
petitioner’s predecessor under the proceedings in C.S.No.7 of 1958, and
the subsequent confirmation of rights by the Hon’ble Division Bench of
this Court. It is further argued that the respondent has wrongly placed
reliance on earlier proceedings, which had already been set aside, and
4
has proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner without conducting
any fresh enquiry as directed. The learned counsel submitted that the
respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction by virtually sitting in appeal
over the orders passed by this Court and by disregarding binding
judicial pronouncements. It is also contended that the respondent failed
to consider the report of the Tahsildar dated 23.11.2024, which clearly
indicated the factual possession and classification of the land, and
thereby failed to take into account the relevant material while passing
the order. The learned counsel argued that conduct of the respondent
clearly establishes that he has not complied with the directions of this
Court in true spirit and is liable to be punished under the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
6. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue
has relied upon the counter affidavit filed by the respondent and
submitted that there is no willful disobedience on the part of the
respondent and that the present contempt case is misconceived. It is
contended that the respondent has duly complied with the directions of
this Court by passing detailed orders in Proceedings No.LRW/2238,
2239, 2455/2017 dated 24.02.2026. It is further submitted that the
said order was passed after examining the entire record, including the
claims and objections of all concerned parties, and after affording due
opportunity to them, and therefore, it cannot be said that there is non-
compliance of the order of this Court. It is further submitted that the
5
delay in passing the order was neither intentional nor deliberate, but
occurred due to administrative reasons and the complexity of the issues
involved in the matter, which required detailed examination of
voluminous records and multiple claims. It is contended that the
respondent, being a quasi-judicial authority, was required to consider
various aspects including earlier proceedings, claims of third parties,
and statutory provisions under the Telangana Land Reforms Act, and
therefore, some delay occurred. It is submitted that the respondent has
acted bona fide and in discharge of his official duties and that there is
no intention to disobey the orders of this Court. It is contended that the
respondent has great respect for the orders of this Court and has taken
steps to comply with the same by passing a reasoned order. Therefore,
it is prayed that the contempt case may be dismissed.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent filed reply affidavit of the
petitioner and submitted that the contentions raised by the respondent
are untenable and are only an attempt to justify the deliberate
disobedience of the orders of this Court. It is contended that so-called
compliance by passing the proceedings dated 24.02.2026 is only an
eyewash and does not amount to compliance in the eye of law. The
learned counsel submitted that compliance of a judicial order must be
real, effective and in accordance with the spirit of the directions issued
by the Court, and not a mere formality. It is further contended that the
respondent has completely ignored the scope of the remand ordered in
6
L.R.A.No.10 of 2012, which required fresh adjudication of the matter
after considering the documentary evidence and affording opportunity
to all parties. Instead of undertaking such exercise, the respondent has
simply relied upon earlier proceedings and rejected the claim of the
petitioner, thereby defeating the very purpose of the remand. It is also
submitted that the respondent has failed to consider the binding
findings of this Court in C.S.No.7 of 1958 and the subsequent orders of
the Hon’ble Division Bench, which clearly establish the rights of the
petitioner over the subject lands. The learned counsel would further
submit that the respondent’s order is self-contradictory and suffers
from non-application of mind, inasmuch as it refers to certain
proceedings having attained finality, while at the same time ignoring the
fact that those very proceedings were reopened and set aside by the
appellate authority. It is also contended that the respondent has failed
to consider the proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 28.02.2026, which
support the claim of the petitioner and recognize his rights in the
subject lands. Thus it is contended that the conduct of the respondent
in passing the order only after issuance of Form-I notice by this Court
clearly demonstrates that the respondent acted under compulsion and
not in obedience to the orders of this Court. Such conduct amounts to
willful disobedience and undermines the authority of this Court.
Therefore, it is prayed that the respondent may be punished under the
provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
7
8. A careful examination of the record would reveal that this
Court, in W.P.No.4744 of 2025, by order dated 18.02.2025, directed the
respondent herein/RDO to pass orders in C.C.Nos.W/80/75 and
W/92/75 strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within 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.
Admittedly, the respondent has not complied with the said direction
within the stipulated time. In the present Contempt Case, this Court
vide orders dated 17.10.2025 and 19.11.2025 issued notice to the
respondent and thereafter, the matter was adjourned several times for
filing counter. On 30.01.2026, this Court observing that despite
granting sufficient time the respondent has not filed counter affidavit
and that the attitude of respondent is lethargic in complying the orders
of this Court, issued notice in Form-I to the respondent and adjourned
the case to 27.02.2026. In pursuance of the orders dated 30.01.2026
only, the respondent has filed counter affidavit on 26.02.2026 enclosing
the copy of order dated 24.02.2026 in Proceedings No.LRW/2238, 2239,
2455/2017.
9. The relevant paragraphs of the Proceedings No.LRW/2238, 2239,
2455/2017 dated 24.02.2026 issued by the respondent are extracted
below:
8
“ORDER:
Perused the material on record and also the objections filed in this
case. During the course of enquiry before this Tribunal several
claims and objections have been filed, case wise details are
enumerated below. Now the following questions have raised before
this Tribunal, all the questions such raised shall be answered point
wise:
1. Whether the subject lands were ever part of C.S.No.7/1958 as
alleged by the petitioner i.e, Nawab Mohd Yousufuddin Khan,
S/o.Late Nawab Wajihuddin Khan?
The Hon’ble High Court vide its orders in Application No.488 of
2012 in Application No.519 of 2009 and Application No.24 of 2024
in C.S.No.07 of 1958, dated:09-01-2025 have categorically observed
that one Smt.Sultana Jahan Begum, D/o. Late Nawab Moinuddula
Bahadur has filed O.S.No.130/1 of 1953 for partition and separate
possession of the Matruka Properties specifically shown in the
Schedules appended to the plaint, on the file of the City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, which was later transferred to the file of the High Court
and numbered as C.S.No.7 of 1958.
Further the Hon’ble High Court in the same orders have also
observed that the parties to the suit have filed memorandum of
compromise. An application namely Application No.126 of 1958,
was filed praying to record compromise and to appoint M/s.Raja
Kishandas and Nawab Saleem Khan as Commissioners / Receivers
with the powers set out in the memorandum of compromise.
Accordingly, a preliminary decree was passed on 06-04-1959.
Thereafter, the Commissioners / Receivers have affected the
partition of the lands as per the schemes and filed their report
dated: 20-12-1965 and affidavit dated:20-09-1966 in application
No.205 of 1966.
The Hon’ble High Court went on to enumerate the distribution
statement of the Commissioners/Receivers as mentioned above,
Schedule A comprised of 254 items have been mentioned, the
subject lands in Sy.Nos.174 to 183 & 154 of Pedda Shapur Village,
Shamshabad Mandal are never shown in this statement by the
Hon’ble High Court. The petitioner herein has also submitted copy
of the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in Application No.125 of
1982 in C.S.No.07 of 1958, dated:16-11-1984. Claiming to be the
final decree passed by the Hon’ble High Court in respect of the
subject lands in Sy.Nos.173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180,
181, 182, 183, total admeasuring Ac.74.97 Cents situated at Pedda
Shapur Village of Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. As
already discussed, supra the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court in
Application No.488 of 2012 in Application No.519 of 2009 and
Application No.24 of 2024 in C.S.No.07 of 1958, dated:09-01-2025
is binding upon all, and it’s highly unlikely that the subject lands of
9
Pedda Shapur Village are part of C.S.No.7 of 1958 as claimed by the
petitioner herein.
As such all the material placed before this Tribunal by the
petitioner herein appears to be conceited and fraudulent and only
brought forward for the purpose of filing this present case. He is
claiming title in respect of the lands through his father late Nawab
Wajiuddin Khan on the strength of preliminary decree of Hon’ble
High Court in Application No.104 of 1960 in C.S.No.07 of 1958 is
also under dispute as there is no reference as to the present lands
of late Rafiuddin in the Schedule of Properties attached to the
preliminary decree referred to above, but in the report filed in
Application No.335 of 1962 in C.S.No.07/1958 there is a reference
about Pedda Shapur Village in Sy.Nos.171 to 183 to an extent
Ac.80-00 gts which is totally irrelevant and fabricated one for the
purpose of filing present petition, which is devoid of merits and
deserves no consideration. This answers the question.
2. Action on the orders of the LRAT., in 10/2012, dated:04-04-2017
filed by Nawab Mohd Yousufuddin Khan, S/o.Late Nawab
Wajihuddin Khan?
Since the orders of the LRT., dated:27-05-1977 have been
challenged several times in LRA No.2199/77, dt:05-07-1978,
271/1994 & 277/1994, dated:14-03-1995 and in appeal before the
Hon’ble High Court in CR.P.No.621/1979 & C.MP No.1349 & 1350
of 1979 & CRP.No.2286/1995 & 2676/1996. The Hon’ble High
Court has dismissed the revision petition by confirming the
common order passed by the LRAT., passed in LRA No.271 & 277 of
1994. Thus, the order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal have
attained finality.
The LRAT., in its judgment in 10/2012 have categorically stated
that….”The appellant has filed several documents of Hon’ble High
Court of A.P., pertaining to his rights in the disputed property situated
at Pedda Shapur village. He has not filed those documents before
the lower tribunal. He has directly filed this appeal before this
court as third party/aggrieved. Those documents are to be examined
and decision is to be given. The petitioner who is claiming the
property by virtue of the orders and decree of the Hon’ble High Court
shall be given opportunity to advance his case and therefore he
should be given opportunity to appear before the lower tribunal and
canvas his case before the lower tribunal along with his documents.
This court being appellate authority against the orders of the lower
tribunal and the claim of the appellant was not adjudicated by the
lower court and the appellant directly approached this court it is fit
case to remand the matter to the lower tribunal with direction to
consider the case of the appellant by giving opportunity to the
appellant and the other party and dispose of the same on merits. The
truth or otherwise of the documents filed by the appealing
cannot be decided by this appellate tribunal and it is lower
10
tribunal that has to record the evidence of the appellant,
mark the documents and decide the case afresh for giving any
exemption to the properties claimed by the appellant.
It is an undeniable fact that the then LRAT., in its judgment in
W/80/75 & W/92/75, dt:15-07-1994 have held that as per original
file bearing No.H/8457/65 of the then Revenue Divisional Officer,
Chevella Division (This is a file wherein 38-A was granted over the
subject lands in favour of the Late Protected Tenant Sri.
Eshwaraiah) it is clearly mentioned that “the Pattedar Rafiuddin
died and LRs in title got mutated the subject land in Sy.No.202 Old
and New 172 to 183, admeasuring Ac.171-16 gts of Shapur Kalan
village in their favour by the then Tahsildar mutation
No.B5/6742/1965. The Tenant Eshwaraiah entered into agreement
of sale for Rs.10,000/- from the LRs of Pattedar Sri. Rafeeuddin and
a certificate on stamp paper of Rs.300/- was issued to the tenant,
as such the tenant have accrued the rights of pateddar.
Subsequently Eshwaraiah’s wife Smt.Satyamma & son Jai Hind
filed declaration before the LRT.,
Further as per Sec.5 of the Telangana Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1950… “A person lawfully cultivating any land belonging
to another person shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not
cultivated personally by the landholder and if such person is not,-
Persons deemed to be tenants. [Act No. XXI of 1950] 9 (a) a member
of the landholder’s family”
As such the 38-A issued by then Revenue Divisional Officer has
attained finality. Hence this Tribunal is of the opinion that the
request of the petitioner to deleted the subject lands from the
holdings of Smt.Satyamma & Jai Hind deserves no consideration.
This answers the question.
3. Are the implead petitioners Mir Mohd Ali Khan, Mir Jaffar Ali Khan
& Smt.Zaheerunnisa Begum eligible for any relief if so, to what
extent?
As seen from the preliminary decree in O.S.No.09/1966, dated:
17-04-1970 on the file of the II Addl., Chief District Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad on which these implead petitioners are relying, it
is evident that Late Kulsumunnisa Begum, W/o.Jabandar Ali Khan
has filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff therein is the heir
of late Mir Wazeer Ali khan Known as “Asaf Yawaral Mulk” and be
declared as owner of the properties. The said O.S.No.9 of 1966 was
upheld by the Hon’ble High Court in CCCA.No.81/1973 and same
was also confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP.No.227/1976. As such
they have perfected their title and attained finality. These implead
petitioners have filed certain documents in which there are no
where the properties of Pedda Shapur village are mentioned and the
Civil Court order is for grave yard covered by an extent Ac.2-00 gts
in which the Archaeology Dept., was made party.
11
Hence the implead petitioner have only perfected their claim for an
extent Ac.7-26 gts in Sy.No.182 of Pedda Shapur Village of
Shamshabad Mandal. The same has also been confirmed by the
then Tahsildar in file No.D/480/2011, dated:30-10-2013. This
answers the question.
4. Are the Respondents Chennakesha Anjaiah, S/o.C.Mallesh & (5)
Others are eligible for any relief? Are the Respondents Chennaboina
Krishna Yadav, S/o.Late C.Sayanna Yadav & Jagan Mohan Reddy,
S/o.Late R.Krishna Reddy are eligible for any relief?
On perusal of the documents submitted it was observed that one
Chennakesha Sathaiah had purchased the lands bearing Sy.No.176
(6-00), Sy.No.177(4-30) & 178(10-31), total admeasuring Ac.21-21
gts situated at Pedda shapur Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District from recorded pattedar Mohd Rafiuddin through
unregistered sale deed about 55 years back and his name was
incorporated in the pahanies from 1964 in possession column.
Subsequently they have filed perpetual injunction and rectification
of records before the Sr.Civil Judge, R.R.District in
O.S.No.350/2003 and the said suit has been decreed on 22-04-
2004. Further another suit for declaration of title and perpetual
injunction was filed against original pattedar in O.S.No.1294/2004
in respect of land in Sy.Nos.177 (1- 23) & 178 (3-24), total Ac.5-07
gts which was also decreed in favour of them on 22-02-2005. Yet
another suit in O.S.No.1442/2004, dated:30-07-2007 has also been
decreed in their favour for lands in Sy.Nos.177 (1-24) & 178(3-23).
On perusal of the documents submitted by Chennaboina Krishna
Yadav, S/o.Late C.Sayanna Yadav & Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o. Late
R.Krishna Reddy it is observed that he holds agreement of sale over
the subject lands in Sy.nos.182 & 183 admeasuring Ac.15-30 gts
from the LRs of the original Pattedar Late Rafiuddin Khan and
request to delete the said holding from the holdings of Nawab
Yosufuddin Khan, Further the respondent Jagan Mohan Reddy,
S/o.Late R.Krishna Reddy purchased lands in Sy.No.176(6-00) and
Sy.No.182(5-00) total admeasuring Ac.11-00 gts of Pedda Shapur
Village from Sri.G.Jai Hind and others through Un-Registered sale
deed document dated:22-07-1989. Further the then Special Grade
Deputy Collector & Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division
have passed orders U/s.10(4) of APLR(COAH), Act, 1973 in
CC.No.W/80/75 & W/92/75, dated:28-07-2008, wherein the
Tahsildar, Shamshabad Mandal was ordered to take over the
possession of the subject lands to an extent Ac.157-64 Cents
including lands in Sy.No.176 (6-00), Sy.No.177(4- 30) & 178(10-31),
total admeasuring Ac.21-21 gts situated at Pedda shapur Village.
Subsequently the Tahsildar have taken over the possession of these
lands and issued FORM- X in file No.B/492/2004, dated: 13-07-
2009. Hence attained finality. This order of the LRT., have never
been challenged till date.
12
Now taking into consideration the request of these persons to
delete the land in Sy.No.176 (6-00), Sy.No.177(4-30) & 178(10-31),
total admeasuring Ac.21-21 gts situated at Pedda shapur Village,
Shamshabad Mandal from the holdings of Smt.Satyamma & Jai
Hind is affected by the Sec.17 (1) of the Telangana Land Reforms
(Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, the sale executed after
the notified date i.e., 24-01-1971 is null and void. Even though the
petitioner claims to filed several suits for declaration of title and
injunction, all these Civil cases were against the original declarants,
the Authorized Officer, Land Reforms, Ranga Reddy District nor the
Land Reforms Tribunal Cum Revenue Divisional Officer were never
made party to these suits hence any orders passed behind the back
of official respondents in these have no bearing over this Tribunal.
Hence the claims of these respondents are hereby rejected.
5. Whether the claims put forth by LRs ie., G.Prem Chand, S/o.late
Eshwaraiah of original declarants deserves any consideration?
The claims and objections of the original declarants and their LRs
were already 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 land, the
declarant i.e, Smt.Sathyamma has already put forth the similar
contention before the LRAT., and same as discussed by the LRAT at
para No.2 in its order dated:15-07-1994. The declarant have
contended that her husband has died during the year 1966 and
therefore the rights that arise by virtue of the provisions of 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 declarant and decided that the
as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the entire
holdings of late Sri.G. Eashwaraiah is dividable equally among his
sons and the deceased, the share that would fell to the deceased
will have to be again divided equally among the widow, and the sons
& daughters of the deceased. Accordingly, the LRAT., has already
considered the LRs of the deceased i.e., (04) sons (02) daughters
and (01) widow and only after concluded them to be holding excess
land of 2.7734 SH., which has attained finality then. As such this
tribunal decides that the present claims / objections filed by
G.Prem Chand, S/o.late Eshwaraiah deserves no consideration.
Hence Rejected.
In view of the above the all the questions such raised before this
Tribunal have been answered. The following subject lands to an
extent 2.774 SH., which were already have been declared surplus
by the Land Reforms Tribunal in C.C.No.W/80/75 & W/92/75,
Selected and taken over possession by the Tahsildar attained
finality in the year 2009 and these orders of the Land Reforms
Tribunal deserves no amendment. The Tahsildar, Shamshabad
Mandal is hereby directed to protect the subject Government lands
13
from encroachment and initiate steps to include the schedule suit
properties in Prohibitory list of 22-A.
Extent
Mandal/Village Sy.Nos. Wet/Dry
Ac.Cents
153 Dry 11.03
154 Dry 10.70
155 Dry 5.38
Chowderguda 156 Dry 12.13
Village,
157 Dry 6.30
Shamshabad
Mandal 162 Dry 16.70
159 Dry 7.15
160 Dry 7.20
158 Dry 6.08
Total 82.67
174 Dry 7.73
175 Dry 11.54
176 Dry 9.91
Pedda Shapur
177 Dry 4.63
Village,
Shamshabad
178 Dry 10.70
Mandal
183 Dry 10.33
182 Dry 10.68
154 Dry 9.45
Total 74.97
G.Total 157.64
10. A perusal of the aforesaid proceedings dated 24.02.2026 would
disclose that the respondent has not undertaken the exercise mandated
under the remand order passed in L.R.A.No.10 of 2012. The appellate
authority had specifically directed fresh adjudication upon affording
14
opportunity to all parties and on due consideration of the documentary
evidence placed on record. However, the order passed by the respondent
reveals that he has substantially relied upon earlier proceedings, which
had already been set aside and proceeded to record findings as though
such proceedings had attained finality. Such an approach is clearly
impermissible and contrary to the very scope of remand. The order does
not reflect any meaningful consideration of the documentary evidence
placed by the petitioner nor does it disclose independent application of
mind to the issues involved. On the contrary, the findings recorded are
based on erroneous assumptions and misreading of binding judicial
pronouncements. The respondent has also failed to appreciate the legal
effect of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.6240 of 1978,
whereby the claim of protected tenancy in favour of Eshwaraiah was set
aside, thereby rendering any subsequent transactions or claims flowing
therefrom unsustainable. Further, the material on record, including the
proceedings in C.S.No.7 of 1958 and the reports of the Receiver-cum-
Commissioner, clearly indicate that the subject lands formed part of the
estate allotted to the petitioner’s predecessor. The respondent, however,
has brushed aside such material without assigning valid reasons and
has arrived at conclusions which 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 directions.
15
11. From the above, it is evident that the respondent, though
functioning as a quasi-judicial authority, has failed to act in accordance
with law and has not given due effect to the binding judicial
pronouncements as well as the directions issued by the appellate
authority. The reasoning assigned in the impugned proceedings is not
only inconsistent but also self-contradictory, inasmuch as the
respondent simultaneously relies upon earlier proceedings as having
attained finality, while ignoring the fact that the very same proceedings
were reopened and set aside in L.R.A.No.10 of 2012. Such contradictory
reasoning renders the decision unsustainable in the eye of law. The
respondent is expected to adjudicate the matter afresh within the
parameters of the remand order, but instead has adopted an approach
which defeats the very purpose of remand.
12. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in pursuance of the
directions issued in the order dated 21.01.2025 in W.P.No.1550 of 2025
and in the order dated 27.02.2026 in C.C.No.3736 of 2025, the
Tahsildar, Shamshabad has issued Proceedings vide No.B/223/2025
dated 28.02.2026, wherein it was ordered as follows:
“In view of my discussion Supra the writ petitioners are the Legal
heirs of Late Mohammed Wajhi Uddin khan who was defendant
No.9 in C.S 7 of 1958 which was closed on 9th January 2025 by the
Hon’ble High Court whereby items to 229 of Schedule-A was held to
be free from any encumbrances and there was a direction for
passing final decree interms of the preliminary decree. And
defendant No.9 was allotted Sy.Nos. 172 to 183 of Peddashapur
Village, Shamshabad Mandal as per the report of the receiver dt:7-
12-1964 vide Application No.335/1962 and as per the allotment
letter dt:31-12-1965 and also under Application No.125/1982
16dt:16-11-1984 a panchanama conducted by Receiver-Cum-
commissioner and constructive possession was given under a cover
of Panchanama with Sketch Map and Demarcations and specific
boundaries.
The land surrendered by Late G.Eshwaraiah of the land belonging
to Third parties has no relevance and cannot be binding on the real
owners of the properties without whose knowledge the proceedings
underwent. As per the orders passed in L.R.A.10 of 2012 Dt:04-04-
2017 in respect of Sy.Nos. 174, 175, 176, 178, 182 & 183, the
surrender proceedings were set aside. And further the remaining
land was not Ceiling Surplus but was claimed by some Third Parties
as mentioned above whose claims have been rejected as mentioned
above.
Therefore I am of the view that the writ petitioners names have to
be incorporated in the Revenue Records (Bhubharati) as being the
owners of the land as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in
C.S.7/1958 vide Application No. 125/1982 dt:16-11-1984 which
are the final decree proceedings containing the schedule of
properties along with the Sy. Nos and Boundaries mentioned as
schedule A2R and also as per the final orders passed on Dt:09-01-
2025 before the Division Bench putting an end to C.S.07/1958
Litigation in respect of Item No. From 1 to 229 of the suit schedule.
These properties were part of Item No.4 of schedule “A” of the suit
schedule in C.S.07/1958 and thereby the said order is required to
be implemented as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court.
All the third party claims through Late G.Eshwaraiah and his legal
heirs (Sathyamma and Jaihind) and various other persons claiming
through them of 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.172 to 183 οf Peddashapur Village,
Shamshabad Mandal at any point of time and even if there are any
transactions they are hit by Sec-52 of the Transfer of Property Act
1882, and they become null and void as per Law. This order is being
made by this authority keeping in view of the directions of the
Hon’ble High Court enunciating the rights of the parties in various
proceedings and also keeping in view of the legal principle this order
is passed to meet the ends of justice.
If any party is aggrieved by this order they are entitled to seek
appropriate relief/ remedy in accordance with law available to them
within the statutory period.
Necessary entries are made as per Bhubharati ROR Act 2025 in
accordance with the Law.”
17
13. It is pertinent to note that the Tahsildar, Shamshabad, in his
proceedings dated 28.02.2026, has categorically recognized the rights of
the petitioner over the subject lands, in terms of the orders passed by
this Court in C.S.No.07 of 1958 vide Application No.125 of 1982 dated
16.11.1984, and has consequently directed incorporation of the
petitioner’s name in the revenue records (Bhu Bharati) in accordance
with the final decree proceedings dated 09.01.2025 in C.S.No.7 of 1958
and subsequent orders of this Court. However, the respondent has
taken a diametrically opposite view without assigning any cogent or
tenable reasons for discarding the said proceedings. Such an approach
clearly reflects non-application of mind and arbitrary exercise of quasi-
judicial power.
14. Article 215 of the Constitution of India states that every High
Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a
Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. The said
power is not only constitutional but also inherent, meant to ensure that
the authority of this Court is upheld and its orders are obeyed in both
letter and spirit. Rule 27 of the Contempt of Courts Rules, 1980
empowers this Court to pass such orders as the justice of the case
requires. Thus, when a party, more particularly a public authority, fails
to comply with the directions of this Court in true spirit, this Court is
duty bound to exercise its jurisdiction to uphold the majesty of law. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in several catena of judgments
18
held that consideration means it should be in true spirit applying mind
to the facts of the case. Simple rejection without applying mind does not
amount to compliance of the order. Mere formal or mechanical
compliance, without proper consideration, would not amount to
compliance in the eye of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in SEBI vs.
Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd., 1 held as follows:
“35. Sufficient opportunities have been given to the contemnors to
fully comply with those orders and purge the contempt committed
by them but, rather than availing of the same, they have adopted
various dilatory tactics to delay the implementation of the orders of
this Court. The non-compliance with the orders passed by this
Court shakes the very foundation of our judicial system and
undermines the rule of law, which we are bound to honour and
protect. This is essential to maintain faith and confidence of the
people of this country in the judiciary.”
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 purported compliance by way of
proceedings dated 24.02.2026 cannot be accepted as valid compliance
in the eye of law, as the same is vitiated by lack of proper application of
mind and is in clear deviation from the directions 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 dated 24.02.2026 only after
1
(2014) 5 SCC 429
19
initiation of contempt proceedings and issuance of notice in Form-I,
unmistakably establishes willful and deliberate disobedience. The
apology tendered by the respondent does not inspire confidence and
appears to be a mere attempt to avoid the consequences of contempt.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondent
has committed civil contempt. Accordingly, the respondent is found
guilty for violation of the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by this Court
in W.P.No.4744 of 2025 and he is liable to be punished under Section
12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
16. In view of the findings recorded above and in exercise of the
powers conferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and
Rule 27 of the Contempt of Courts Rules, 1980, to meet the ends of
justice and to ensure the majesty of law is upheld, the Proceedings
No.LRW/2238, 2239, 2455/2017 dated 24.02.2026 issued by the
respondent/RDO are hereby set aside. Further, having regard to the
conduct of the respondent and to ensure fair and impartial
adjudication, the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, is directed to
withdraw the matter from the file of the respondent and entrust the
same to another competent Revenue Divisional Officer. The concerned
Officer shall reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders
strictly in accordance with the orders of this Court in W.P.No.4744 of
2025 and the remand order passed in L.R.A.No.10 of 2012, within a
20
period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order
and communicate the decision to the petitioner.
17. In the result, the Contempt Case is allowed sentencing the
respondent/contemnor to suffer imprisonment for a period of one (01)
month and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only). In
default of payment of fine, the respondent shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a further period of two (02) weeks. The petitioner shall
pay subsistence allowance to the respondent, as per Rules, during the
period of detention of respondent in civil prison within two (02) weeks
from today. The sentence of imprisonment is suspended for a period of
two (02) weeks from today. After expiry of said period of two (02) weeks,
the respondent shall surrender before the Registrar (Judicial-I), High
Court for the State of Telangana, to undergo sentence of imprisonment
as stated supra.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date: 16.04.2026
Note:
1) Issue C.C. today.
2) Registry is directed to communicate this order
to the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.
(b/o)
scs