Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 9780
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, J
Singireddy Balavantha Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Smt. V.V.L. Chandrakala – Respondent
CONTEMPT CASE No.958 OF 2026 | W.P. No.28819 of 2025
A contempt petition for non-compliance is not maintainable if the competent authority has already considered the application and passed a reasoned order, even if such order is a rejection.
Headnote:The matter pertains to the Bhu Bharathi Act, specifically Section 6, and the Bhu Bharati Rules, 2025. The petitioners sought the deletion of certain names from revenue records and the issuance of e-pattadar passbooks in their names. Following a previous court order directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider their application, the petitioners alleged willful non-compliance. The court found that the Tahsildar, acting as the competent authority, had already considered the application and issued a rejection endorsement. The primary issue was whether the respondents had willfully violated the court's directions. The court observed that the competent authority had exercised its jurisdiction under the relevant statute to reject the application, thereby negating the claim of deliberate violation of the court's order. In the light of the above, this Contempt Case is closed, granting liberty to the petitioners to challenge the said endorsement dated 06.12.2025.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the contempt petition regarding the alleged failure to comply with a court order for revenue record correction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. determination of the competent authority's action in rejecting the application via a formal endorsement. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. closure of contempt proceedings upon evidence of administrative action, while preserving the right to challenge the decision. (Para 7) |
This Court made the following:
ORDER (ORAL)
This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of order dated 23.09.2025 in W.P. No.28819 of 2025.
2. The petitioners filed application dated 11.06.2025 during Revenue Sadassu with a request to delete the names of respondent Nos.5 to 8 and record the names of the petitioners in revenue records. The same was not considered by respondent No.3. Therefore, the petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition.
3. Vide order dated 23.09.2025, this Court disposed of the said writ petition granting liberty to the petitioners to submit online application to respondent No.3 i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Gajwel, Siddipet District, in terms of Bhu Bharati Rules, 2025 , along with all the relevant documents with a request to correct wrong entries and issue e-pattadar passbooks in their names, and on receipt of the same, respondent No.3 shall consider and dispose it of in accordance with law by putting the petitioners and unofficial respondents on notice and affording them an opportunity.
4. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the respondents did not comply with the said order though the petitioners have submitted online application on 17.11.2025.
5. Whereas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue has produced endorsement dated 06.12.2025 of respondent No.2 herein, to contend that respondent No.2 is the competent authority for correction of entries in terms of Section - 6 of the Bhu Bharathi Act , and he has considered the aforesaid online application submitted by the petitioners dated 17.11.2025 and rejected the same. Copy of the said endorsement is placed on record.
6. The said copy of the endorsement is also furnished to learned counsel for the petitioners who seeks liberty of this Court to challenge the said endorsement dated 06.12.2025 of the Tahsildar, Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District.
7. In the light of the above, this Contempt Case is closed, granting liberty to the petitioners to challenge the said endorsement dated 06.12.2025. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed.
