IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CONTEMPT CASE No.8 of 2026 DATE: 20.02.2026 Between:

Smt Tahniyat Qutoobuddin ...Petitioner AND Prateek Jain and two (2) others …Respondents

ORDER

This Contempt Case is filed complaining of violation of the orders of this Court dated 15.12.2025 passed in W.P. No.

27766 of 2025.

2. This Court, by order dated 15.12.2025, passed an order directing the parties in W.P. No. 27766 of 2025 to maintain status quo obtaining as on that day in respect of the subject property in all respects.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, despite the order passed by this Court, the contemnor has willfully violated the same and thereby committed disobedience of the order dated 15.12.2025. It is further submitted that the petitioner informed the respondents about the said order on 15.12.2025 and also submitted a representation requesting them not to alter the revenue records.

4. Learned counsel would further submit that the Encumbrance Certificate demonstrates that prior to the order passed by this Court, there was no concluded transaction warranting removal of the petitioner’s husband’s name from the revenue records. However, subsequently, the name of the petitioner’s husband was removed and the name of another claimant was incorporated. It is also contended that a pattadar passbook was issued in favour of the said claimant and that the online records reflect the date of application/entry as 15.12.2025, i.e., the very same date on which this Court passed the interim order. Therefore, according to the petitioner, contempt lies against the respondent.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that respondent No.3 has categorically stated in paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit that no representation dated 15.12.2025 was filed before him by the petitioner. He would further submit that the name of the petitioner’s husband was removed from the revenue records on 06.12.2025 by virtue of proceedings dated 28.08.2025 passed by respondent No.1 in File No. D1/1764/2024, i.e., prior to the interim order dated 15.12.2025. It is contended that, upon receipt of the interim order, status quo has been maintained in all respects and that there is no violation of the orders passed by this Court.

6. He would further submit that W.P. No. 27766 of 2025 is still pending for adjudication and that no contempt would lie against respondent No.3, as the relevant transaction and mutation had already taken place on 06.12.2025, prior to the order dated 15.12.2025. Though the online records show the date 15.12.2025, the same only reflects updating of records pursuant to earlier proceedings and does not indicate any fresh action taken in violation of the Court’s order.

7. This Court, having taken into consideration the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, including the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 and the writ papers, notices that the interim order was pronounced on 15.12.2025. However, the revenue records indicate that the removal of the petitioner’s husband’s name was effected on 06.12.2025 pursuant to proceedings dated 28.08.2025, which is prior to the date of the interim order.

8. Further, though it is the case of the petitioner that a representation dated 15.12.2025 was submitted informing the respondents about the interim order, the same has been specifically denied by respondent No.3, and no acknowledgment evidencing receipt of such representation is placed on record. In the absence of material to show that respondent No.3 had knowledge of the interim order at the relevant point of time and thereafter deliberately violated the same, benefit of doubt is liable to be extended to respondent No.3.

9. In view of the above, this Court opines that there is no deliberate or willful disobedience of the order dated 15.12.2025 passed in W.P. No. 27766 of 2025 by respondent No.3.

10. Accordingly, the Contemp