Telangana hc order feb 25

1. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S,RAMACHANDRA RAO
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 298 oF 2020
Contempt Case filed Under Sections 10 Lo 12 of Contempt of Courts Act to
punish all the respondents herein for willfully violating, disobeying the order of this High
Courtdated. 12.10.2018 in l.A.No.1 of 2018 inW.P.No.37623 of 2018.
Betwee n:
1. Ummenthala Mutha Reddy, S/o, Sai Reddy, Age. 60 Years, resident of
Ananthagiri Village, Ellankuntha [,4andal, Ralanna Siricilla District.
2. Ummenthala Pushpa, W/o. Mutha Reddy, Age. 58 Years, resident of Ananthagirr
Village, Ellankuntha lt,4andal, Rajanna Siricilla District.
3 Uppula Lokendhar Reddy, S/o. Malla Reddy, Age. 55 Years, resjdent of
Ananthagiri Village, Ellankuntha lr,4andal, Rajanna Siricilla Distrjct.
4. Yara Yellaiah, S/o. Pedda Ir/allaiah, Age. 65 years, resident of Ananthagiri
Village, Ellankuntha Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District.
5. Yara Yellavva, W/o. Ballamallu, Age. 65 Years, resident of Ananthagiri Village,
Ellankuntha lvlandal, Rajanna Siricilla District.
6. Gokulakonda ltrlallaiah, S/o. lVuthu Lingam, Age. 63 years, resident of
Ananthagiri Village, Ellankuntha Mandal, Ra.janna Siricilla District.
7. Reddy Prathap Reddy, S/o. Pedda Chandra Reddy, Age. 60 years, resident of
Ananthagiri Vrllage, Ellankuntha lvlandal, Rajanna Siricilla District.
8. Reddy Bqggwn Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Age. 55 Years, resident of
Ananthagiri Village, Ellankuntha Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District.
9. Galipelly Raj.qiah, S/o Pochaiah, Age 65 Years, resident of Ananthagiri Village,
Ellankuntha Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District.
10. Battu Nayakaiah, S/o. Kanakaia, Age. 58 Years, resident of Ananthagiri Village,
Ellankuntha Mandal, Rajanna Siricilla District.
1 1. T.humula .Lingawa, .W/o. Komuraiah,- Age 70 Years, resident of Ananthagiri
Village, Ellankuntha lr/andal, Rajanna Siriailla District.
...PetitionersMrit Petitioners No.04,05,08, 10, 11,13, 16,20, 21,22,and29in
WP.No.37623 of 2018
AND
1. Sri D. Krishna Bhaskar, I.A.S. District Collector, Rajanna Siricilla District.
2. lr,4s Yasmin Basha, District Joint Collector and Administrator R and R, Ra.janna
Siricilla District.
3. Sri N. srinivasa Rao, Land Acquisition officer cum Revenue Divisional officer,
Rajanna Siricilla Division, Rajanna Siricilla District.
...Respondents/Respondents 05, 06 and 07 in Wp.No.37623 of 2018
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI CH RAVI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondents: THE ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL (TG)
The Court made the following: ORDER
...,.

2. ,(
]'HE HONOURABLIJ SRI .IUSl'ICE M.S.RAN{ACHANDRA RAO
Contemrrt Case No,298 of 2020
ORDIiIT
'I'his Contempt Case is pret'erlecl bv thc petitioners to pr.rnish the
rcspon(['n1s tirr rrilllirl disrtbe ciierrcc, o1'the orcler clt.l].10.2018 in
l.r.o. I o1'1018 in r'ir l)cIirion o.]7ol-l rrl'l0lU passecl bv this
Court under Sections l0 ro l2 olrhe Contempl of Coufts Act, l97l .
l. I'e tiLioner's alc l.rnci o nels untl srlall liir.nrers ol agriculttLral
lancls in Anarrtcgiri r illagc, Illar.rthuliunra 1tnclal. I{ajanna Sircilla
District of erstwhile Karirnnagar Districr. l-heir lands along with
thosc ol'others were acquired lor construction of Anantagir.i Reservoir
undcr Kaleswaram Project Package No. l0 Lrnder two preliminary
notifications issued under Section l1(1) of the Right to Fair
Compensation, Rehabilitation and Reserrlemerlr Act,20l3 (Act 30 of
20I 3 ). 'l'he flrst o1'such notillcarions was published in the Telangana
Gazette No.O1, dt.08.05.2016, fbr Acs.69.22 % gts. and rhe second
such notilication was pLrblrshe.cl in procee,dirre No.C/555/201 7
clt.0l .02.10 l7 lbr Acs.li7.-17 rrts.
3, Pctitionels f iled thc :rbor c 'rit I)crition in Octobe r'. 2018
contcnding that the resltorrrlents in the rlir Pclition clicl not fbllorl an_v
rurantlalorl' procedurc u ith legurcl to conducr ot'(jrama Sabhtr urrder
Section I I (2) of the said Act, updating o1'land records under Section
l1(5) of the Act, affording personal hearing on objections filed under
I
.-*.,

3. I
Section l5(2) ol tl-rc Act and procedures relating to determinatior.r ol-
Resettlement and Rehabilitaliori cntillcn.tcr'lts as per Scctions I (r to I 8
ol the said Act. It is also contended that thc I)istrict Collector did rrot
revise and update the markct value of the lands as per third proviso to
Sub-Section (3) of Section 26 ol the Act. They alleged that without
follorving the above rnandatory procedures two declarations under
Section 1 9( 1 ) of the Act were issued vide proceedings No.G/555/2017
dt.O 1.01.2011 and 16.05,2017. -[hey alleged that their narrres 'ere
mentioned in these tu'o declarations. Details of lands ol petitioners
alc mentioned in an Alrnexure filed to the alfidavit in the Writ
Pctition
passing o1'au'ards. petjtioners reprcsentcd that thcy were not satislled
r'r,ith compensation being deLernrirrecl bv thc rcspondents and that lhey
pointed out that issues legalding ureasurerrcnt ol land, structulcs ancl
appoltionment of compensation were brought to the notice of the
respondents and that the respondents ignored the same and passed
awards without properly assessing compensation. They alleged that
1, It is also pointcd ()ut Liral dLrrins auard crrquiry. ancl hclble
conrplete anllcls Lnrclcr' .'c1ion ll ol thc i:t. l,Lr1 lr:rr r r.lsi,Jrl rrrr rr'(ls
only for colnpcnsation Lrnder Section 30 ol the Act and that
Reselllenten/ and Rehahiliralion Av,ard uncler Section 31 of the Act /br
depriving petitictners r.tf their ogricultural lond,s. hate not he en pas.sed
I
some of the petitioners took compensation under protest.
5. Petitioners cor-rtcndcd that thc rcspondcnts did not pass

4. .-
L
by the date offiling of the Writ Petitions and evennow' According to
them, the process of' house-hold survey, enumeration of eligible
Project-Aft'ected lamilies and determination of Resettlement and
Rehabilitation entitlements for each lamily are also not finalized yet,
ancl that none of the petitioners were paid any Rehabilitation and
Rescttletncnt entitlements as pcr Il Schecltrlc to tllc Ac1.
6. lhc corttL'lr(1.(l thltl .lii()i(lirrrl Lo S-'itioll -18 ol' llle 'ct the
re spoliclents are barr-ecl li onr tal'ing p()ssessioll ol' LI-re lands or
conrrrence any' rvork u ithor-rL pay irlg lirll colrpcnsatioll as u'e ll as
llehabilitatir-tn and Rese ttlement enti.tlements to the petitioners.
Order dt. 12.10.2018 in I.A.No.l of 2018
7. Thel,had filed I...No.l oi 2018 to rcstrain the respondents
irom taking posscssion of theit agricultural lancls mentiot-ted in the
tleclarations issued on 01 ,01 .21i I 7 and 16,0,5.l0l 7 Lrt.rtlcr Section 1 9( i )
oi Lhc .ct r-tn(l io testnritt Lltc tesp'olrdcttts 1r'trrtl tll<illg trp ellv iiLrthet'
construction uorl,r jtr rltc saicl irttlcls 1'lerlclttru drsposll ol the 'rit
Petition.
8. On t1.10.20 lE. in 1.,.o. I ol l0lti in '.I'].No.17623 o1'20 l8
this Court passed the tbllorving order
"Petilioner.s conlcnd lhul t'to tcIie.l und rchobiIitotittn bene/it.s
hut,c becn puid to thent un(l(r,(,.tiot1 -il ot ,1tt 3() ol )013 uncl rltul
trrular seclion 38. pclitiont'rs tunnol bc t./i.::1to:.:a.:.:ad lillstLch paymenl.
Learned Governmenl Pleader for Land Acquisition seeks time to get
instructions

5. ,l
Tltcrt:fitrt' thctt: ,ltrtll hc jtttt't'ittt rlit t'ttittrt tts ltt ttctl litr "
l hc insta n t ( onlcmDt ('ll r c
g. .I.1ris (iot-itelllpt (arc hirs |rccrl illccl Statirlg that t'he abolc
interim older has becrl liolated br thc resporldcnt nos l to i'
10. -I'he
l" respondent is thc Distlict Coilcctor of Rajanna Sircilla
District. The 2nd respondent is the Joint Collector and Administrator'
Rehabilitation and Resettlement, Rajanna Sircilla District' The 3'd
respondent is the Lancl Acquisition Olficer -- cum - Revenue
Divisional Officer, Rajanna Sircilla Division, Raj anna Sircilla
District.
I l. Petitioners cotrtetlcl that the ahovc illlcrilr ordcr 'll-s
communicated by petitioners to I'hc 3"1 respondent on 22' 10'20 I 8 and
he rvas requestcd not to furthcr darllage crops and lands; that u'orks
were temporarili'i stopped lbr a brief pcriod; but in March' 2019'
works were taken up in some of the lands which are subject uatter ol'
the Writ Petition. It is contended that a representation dt'27 03 '201 9
was submitted by the petitioners to the 3''r respondent specilying the
survey numbers of the lands where the worhs were stafied' but he did
nothing. Instead the petitioners were threatened by the police
employed by the respondents for opposing the said acts'
12, Petitioners contended that as a result of the works carried out by
the respondents. their lands got subnlergcd with water lrotn upstream
in October. 1019 and tl-rat r-rnder 2"'r proviso to Section 38 ol'the Act
t-*

6. j
the respondents could not have caused such submergence without
par ing Rehabilitation and Rcsettlerttcrtt cntitl!'rllcnts at least 6 months
lttf orc lhe datc o1'the atrrrcl urtclor Sectiorl l0 t>t'Lhe Act. Petitiorlels
contend that stancling paddy- crop and other crops raised by them rvere
damaged and therc r'vas also loss on accottnt ol incotre and Iivelihoocl
Photographs ol the submerged lands wele lllcd along with the
13. Petirioners contend that though they represented on I1.10.2019
and 15,10.2019 to the 3'd respondent, but he did nothing.
14, Petitioners contend lhar houses of some of the petitioners ere
also acquired along with their ugrit:ulltu',tl luncls under different
notitlcations issued under Section I I of the Act and in respect of the
said acquisition of houses, noticcs lbr rehabilitation and resettlement
were separately issued in Nove'mbe r. 2019 to stLcl-r petitioners, but the
15. I'hey therelbre sought punisll'nent to all lespondet-rts fbr willlul
disobedience of tl.rc order dt. 12.i0.2018 in l.A.No.l of 2018 in
W.I'}.No.37623 of 2018 under Sections 10 and 12 o1 the Contempt ol
Courls Act, 1971
Other events
16. It is a rrgttcr o1- r'ccorcl that the respondcnts frled on 12.12.2018,
;oirl n.olit'cs .tta tiot tLlttterl ltt iltt: cttrltii.;ilion noli/icctlirttt of
l.)ct,'Iit)t1tt tt,gt ic L.rIIt.rrrtI ItlttI:
I.A.No.2 of 2013 Lo acirte thc ordcr dt,l2.l0.:018 in t.A.No.1 of
allldavit flled in supporl olthe Conter.npt Case.
I

7. 201 8 in W.P.No.37623 ol- 1018. btrt till date tl.rey have not got the said
application listecl belore anr Bcnch of this Cotrrt though rnore than 2
' ': ll lirr:
ctrs lta e e llnsco slllcc lt
17. The llon'blc Chiel' Jr-rsticc Sri .lustice i{aglravendra Singh
Chauhan, on the rcquest of the Additional Advocate General of thc
State of -[elangana, had taken an administrative decision in
November,20 l9 not to list vacate stay applications in Writ Petitions
along with the Contempt Petitions liled by pelitioners alleging non-
compliance of interim orders passed in Writ Petitions by me thus
depriving me of an opporlunity to hear the vacate stay applications in
the Writ Petitions with the Contempt Case. I'he Registrar (General)
had inforrned me of the said adlrinistrative decision of the Hon'bie
Chief Justice. Therelore , there was no possibility lor me to request lbr
listing oi the said l.A.No,l o1' l0l8 betore tre so that the sarre can
also be considered b1'rttc along u'ill-r the Corrtcrnpt Case.
18. The respor-rdents tlled scparate co unter-a ffi dav its errciosirrg
19. T-o. avoid repetition. their contenticlns are relcrred to and
considered below.
20. The 1" respondent contended that he was not serving in the
District of Rajanna Sircilla either or.r 22.10 2018, when the ir.rterirr
about 840 pagcs ol tratet'ial papers.
Consideration bv the Court of the stand of the respondents :

8. 1
orcler was communicated to the 3''1 responclent or on 27'03.2019 *'hen
the petitioners nrade represe'ntation to 3''l responclct'tt
I)ctilioners coutcntl that i responcient 'as ihe District
Collector, Rajanna Sircilla District rvhen petitioners made
representations on 11.10.2019 and 15.10.2019. but he did not do
anything and that 1'' t'espondent cannot claitn that because he was not
holding office on 22.1.0.2018 and 27.03.2019, he has no responsibility
to ensure obedience to the orders of this Court.
I agree with the said submission ol the petitioners because
pctilloner t'as aclrnittedly' thc- District Collector ol the said District irl
October'"l0lc) rihett thc aglicLrltLrral lancls o1' l-rettti,rrlets ('rr
sLrbnrcrgccl (this is cli,se ussed bclou irr de t.ril ) encl it ri as his dLrtl' to
pre ent it^s r iolation since the Ol llcc ol' I)i:tlicL C oLlector. ILa.iarlna
Sir-cilla I)istrict .rs a plrt) in thc riL Irctition { 5" tesponcleut in thc
'P)rncl to the sai(l orclcr clt.1l.l0.l0 iii arrtl it hincls him as *ell eyen
if he joined later in the said l'ost.
21. The 1" respondent then contended that he had perused the llle
record in the Collectoratc and he obscrved that no paft ol petitioners'
lands were handed over to any agency 1br irrigation work after
r 2. r 0.201 B.
Petitioners contend that this is a talse plea because petitioners'
lands ale under submet'sion lhrm Octobcr.2019,

9. Along with the additional counter of l" respondent, certain
Annexures have been fiied. At page no.225 of such Annexures is an
award in L.R.No.G6l3 16612017 dt. I I .01 .2019 passed by the 3'd
lespondent lor acquisition o1-slructules arrd houscs in Abacli and Patta
acquircd letl.'ing a btrlttuct' ol tltt, itutt.l t'otct ctl ht, tlrn ,r,,,,.tr.t
s/ruclures in thc t il lu gt' lttcl tltc total lant.l oi the vill.ogc hus hcett
lesl.ronclent contcndecl that certain cletails o1' land
handed over to tlte ln'igation Deportment'. (emphasis supplied )
This clearly dispror,es the statement of the l" respondent that
no paft of the petitioners' land was handed over to any agency for
irrigation work, and that the said plea is a talse plea contrary to
record. Even by 11.01.2019. the entire agricultural lands in the village
had alreadl, been handed over to the Irrigation Department by the said
department to the contractors ensagcd br it
22. 'l hc i
acqLrisition and ResetLlenrent and Rehabiiitation bencllts uele
disbursed Lo the petitioncrs arrcl rclcrrcd to thcm in para no.5 ol'thc
counter-afUdar it.
Petitioners pointed out that lhe agrict.rltural lands in Anantagiri
Village were acquired in dillerent sLages by issuing diflf'erent
notifications under Section I l(1) and declarations under Section 19( 1)
of the Act. They also pointed out that notifications for acquisition of
t-
lands in Ananta-uiri Village and at pauc no.l8l in the said;r.rard" it is
specificalll, recorded 'the u,qriculturcrl lctntls of the vil.lage have been

10. 9
houses of petitioners in Anantagiri Village were separately issued;
that notillcatio ns {or agria.rltural lttntls and ltr.,uses are distinct and
separate; and documents filed by respotlclents do not indicate about
such stage-wise acquisition or stage-wise provision of Resettlement
and Rehabilitation entitlements as required under Section i 9 of the
Act; and the respondents cannot club the notifications for agricultural
lands and froases together.
Petitioners contend that the respondents are trying to mislead
this (lou11 by shorving arvarcls tbr pa)"lre nt o1- compensation lbr
acquisition of agriculturaL lands and ar'vards passed fbr Resettlement
and Rehabilitation fbr acclr-risition rlf /rr-rlt-ses' and trf ing to pass them
oll, as au.arcls for Resetllcrrent ancl Rehabilitation lbr acclr.risition ol'
crgr ic'ttlnrrctl /artds of the petitioners. I agrer' u'ith the said contention'
To a specific question put by me to the Special Govemment
Picader, Sri A. Sanjcev Kumar, attached to the Office of the
Additional Advocate-General to show to me a single award under
Section 31 of the Act r/w Schedule II of the Act towards Resettlement
and Rehabilitation fbr acquisition of agricultural lands of the
petitioners under the notifications mentioned by the petitioners above,
he was not able to point out to a single docr-rment in any of the
Anrrexures tlled aione u ith the cor.rntc'r-afllclavits tlled by the
respon<1cnts to shorl' that srrch awards r'l crc passed and such
compensation was paicl. .-.-
I

11. 23. Moreover, a Resettlement and Rehabilitation award under
Section 3 I ( 1) of the Act is supposed to be passed along with the
compensation award under Section 30 of the Act as per Section 23(b)
of the Act. This legal position is also nor disputed by the Special
Govemr.nent Pleader. Admittcdl),, this provision was not courplied
rl ith.
24, 'thoLrgh
the l'r responderrL pleaded in para no.6 that attempts
'ere not made to dis;-rossess Lhe petitioners fi.om their agriculturai
lands or residential houses aL an1, point of tinre, this is also a f-alsc plea
as petitioners' lands were dug away and submerged on account ol
inundation as can be seen frorn photographs filed by the petitioners
and it is to be expected to happen once the entire village was handed
over to the Irrigation Deparlment as admitted in page no.283 referred
to above by the 3'd respondent.
In fact, newspaper reports ol'Sakshi New,spaper and I elangana
Today dt.20.02.2020 indicate that there was a direction by the
Principal Secretarl. It'r'ieatiorr Departntent of State ol Telangana to
complete all r.vot'l<s pcrtainirrg to Kalesr,r.'aranr Pro.iect on q,ar-lboting
in lV1arch. 2020 sincc the Gor,ernntent intcnded to release Godar.ari
rvater into the Anantasiri Rcscrvoir. [ianganaval<a Saqar and
I(ondapoch arn nra Sagar
It is not even dcnied by the Special Government Pleader thar
such water from river Godavari was released in all tl-re three
r'

12. il
25, ln para no.7 o1'1he coLrnler o1'the l'' rcspondent a plea is raisecl
Resen,oirs by May, 2020, afir.r the CIOVID- i9 panden.ric lockdown
commenced
A Division Bench of this Couft, to which I am a party, had
recorded this fact in a judgment reported in Merugu Narsaiah @
Narsimha Reddy vs. State of -Ielanganar at para no.47(C).(d),
Pg.524 and also para no.47(tr) at pg.525.
llesettlenrent benclits to tiutes once lirl loss o1'asricultural land
and another lor loss o1' housc, ancl lhat Rehabilitation and
by' the 1'' respondent that a petitiorrer cannoI clajnr Rehabilitation and
Resettlement benefits arc par ablc only to Pro jcct Displaced Family.
provision disentitles the petitioners ro clairn Rehabilitation and
Resettlement benefits under Section 31 lor loss of agricultural land, if
they are paid such entitlements lor loss o1- houses. In law, there is no
such bar.
Act 30 of 201 3 specilically plovides that lor every notif-rcarion
As regards the flrst plea. iL is nor sratcd b1 l'' respondent which
issued under Scction I l( I ) oi' thc ,cr lbr ucrlr-risirion ol' immovable
properL'. a schente lbr I{chabilitation and Rescttlement has to be
preparcd ancl thcn onlr dcclaratiorr Lrr-rclcr Scction l9( I ) o1- tlte Act has
tt.r be issLrecl. 1'ltcn e Itcsctllcnrcnt entl flt'lrtririlitation Ar.r,ard unc.ler
Section i I o1' the Act has to bc passccl along w ith the compensation
2020 (4) A.l-.D. : l0 (D.B )

13. Award under Section 30; after so extending such benefits, then only
under Section 38 possession of the land can be taken. In my opinion,
tl.re Act in fact makes it clear that each notification for acquisition of
land is a separate and distinct event of acquisition and for each such
event, the land loser is entitled to Rehabilitation and Resettlement
benefits.
As regalds the other plea. in an order d1.02.05.2018 tn
W.P.(PII.) No.lt)1 ol l0 l(r. a Division Bench presided over by rhe
State rvould lall u ithin thc dctlnilion ol' 'alfec,tcd fontilt: unclcr
Section l(c) (i) o1'thi: ct. So this ll1cr ol thc I' r'csportrlcnr also rLurs
then Acting Chiei' Justice catcgoricalll, hcld that a lancl ori,ncr u.lto
loses land or othel itrrlor able propen) to acquisition process b_,' thc
contrary to this binding p|ecedent.
26. The contents ofpara B and 9 ofthe counter affidavit ofthe 1"
respondent relate to acquisition of houses and homestead lands which
are subject matter of difl'erent notifications and the 1't respondent is
trying to n.rislead the Courl by projecting as il Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Awards vere passed in lavour of' the petitioners lbr
acquisition ol their ctgriculrtrral 1onr1s, rvhich rvas not done
petitioners' lands ale not submerged is a lalse plea and has already
been dealt u'ith abor,e. lhe photographs filed bv the petitioners show
27. The plca in para 10 oi' the coutile r o1' the l'1 respondent that
that petitioners' lands are inurrdation and submergence bccause

14. rc. ide ntiLtl hou:es itt
Lr
,nantagiri Villagc and Aw'ards passed
construction works were allowed by the respondents. When the
respondents had declared that the works relating to Anantagiri
Reservoir are complete and water is going to be released from River
Godavari in first week of Marcl.r, 2020, this plea of the l't respondent
cannol be believed.
28. In the additional counter affidavit filed b-"- the l" respondent he
had given details of cerlairr notitlcations jssued fbr acquisition ol
l1t
I{esettlemcr-rt.
29. Again in page 5 of the said additional counter affidavit a false
plea is raised that Rehabilitation and Resettlement Awards in respect
of agricultural lands were also passed and amounts paid.
As pointed out above. the Special Government Pleader
appearine fbr the Additior.ral Advocate (ieneral is unable to show any
cloclLrnent proving thaL l{.-habiliLaLion atrcl [l csett lernet'rt Awards under
lelaLion theleLo lbt cotnpe rrsatiot.t t.tntl Rehabilrtation and
Section 31 ibr the agricultutal lands ol' thc petitioners which were
acclr-rirecl, r.vere passed or that anv pa)'lrent in tl-rat regard 'as made'to
anr, ol the petitroncrs
30. 'I'he conlents r:1' Lhe counter atfldar its ol respondents 2 and 3
are identical with thosc ol'Lltc countcr allldar it o1-thc l" respondent.
31. 'I'he plea therein that no att?irfts rvere ntade to dispossess the
petitioners from their agricultural lands and residential houses is a
I
I

15. 1a)se plea. No Ariard unclel Section --l I 01'the .Act is shou,n to have
been passed in respecl ol'1hc aericultLrral Iands o1'thc petitioncrs
tn
u hich have beetr acquitcd.
32. The interim order passed by this Couft on 1 2. I 0.201 8 in
l.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.37623 of 20 18 restraining respondents
from taking possession of the petitioners' agricultural lands continues
to subsist and has not been vacated till date. Ihe said direction would
continue to operate unless vacated even il Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Awards under Section 3lA lor agricultural lands ol the
petitioners rvhich arc acquirccl. are passeci.
-33. I hold tltat pctilioners rvcle disposscssed tiom their lands
October. 2019 itse If and tl'reir lands rvere submergecl as alleged in the
Conlelnpt Casc ancl all thc rcspondcnts hi.rc thus wiillulll,disobci,ecl
tlre order dt. 11.10.201E in I.A.No.l ol-1018 in W.P.No.376)3 of
201 8.
34. In this view ol the matLer, the Contempt Case is allou,ed; the
respondents I to 3 are sentenced to simple imprisonment fbr three (3)
months and fine of Rs.2,000/-. They shall also pay costs of
Its.I0,000/- to each olthc peritioners rl,ithin ibur (4) rveeks.
35, The petitioncls shall dcposit subsistence allorvance at Rs.200/-
per day lor each of the leslror-rclents nithin six (6) rvecks. I'he scntence
of imprisonrnent irnposecl on the respondcnts is suspendecl lbr six (6)
w eel< s.

16. 36. An ad'erse entry srrall be recorded in the service records of
respondents AS regards their rvilllul disobeclience of the orders
r.l).o.37623 of 20 I 8
37.
stand c losecl.
l_i
//TRUE COPY//
dt 12' 10.201 8 passed by Lhis Cor-rrt in I.A.No. r of 20l g in
.s a scclucl. nriscciianroirs pcLilion,* pcnrlrng il.unr in this. shall
SD/-C.VENKATESHWARULU
DEPUTY REGIS
SECTION OFFICER
To,
TVIVK
gbr
] sri D Krishna Bhaskar, r.A.s. District coilector, Rajanna siriciila District.
2. Irls. Yasmin Basha, District Joint coilector and Administrator R and R, Rajanna
Siricilla District.
3. sri N. srinivasa Rao, Land Acquisition officer cum Revenue Divisional officer,
Rajanna Siricilla Division, Rajanna Siricilla District.
4. One CC to Sri CH. Ravl Kumar, Advocate [OpUC]
5. Two ccs to the Additionar Advocate Geneiar, Hig-h court for the State of
Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]
6. The Chief Secretary, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
T The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, state of rerangana, secretariat,
Hyderabad.
B. Two CD Copies
/
l
N,,
l
V

17. HIGH COURT
DATED:2510212021
ORDER
CC.No.298 o12020
ALLOWING THE CONTEMPT CASE
{.},.".
['.
10 t4AR 2021 o
t
o
o
!s ,,,':I
o
HE
1
b
)o