1 (RNT,J & MRK,J C.C. NO.1919 OF 2025) APHC010376882025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1919 OF 2025 Between: 1. JINKA LAKSHMI DEVI, W/o. Late Jinka Chendrayudu, aged about 68 years, R/o. 24/505, Ganesh Nagar, Proddutur, YSR Kadapa District 2. Jinka Chandravathi Devi,, D/o. Late Jinka Chendrayudu, aged about 48 years, R/o. 24/505, Ganesh Nagar, Proddutur, YSR Kadapa District 3. Jinka Bhavani,, D/o. Late Jinka Chendra5mdu, aged about 47 years, R/o. 24/505, Ganesh Nagar, Proddutur, YSR Kadapa District ...Petitioners AND 1. V GANGAIAH, The Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildhar, Proddatur, YSR Kadapa District ...Respondent Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to punish the respondent/Contemnor herein for their willful violation and deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in WA No. 1558 of 2012, dated 13.12.2024 under sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and pass 2 (RNT,J & MRK,J C.C. NO.1919 OF 2025) IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner in CC No. 1919 of 2025 to file reply/rejoinder to the counter filed by respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: K RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent SUSHMA YAGANTI The Court made the following order: 3 (RNT,J & MRK,J C.C. NO.1919 OF 2025) JUDGMENT:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) This Contempt Case has been filed seeking to punish the respondent/contemnor for his alleged willful violation and disobedience of the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1558 of 2012. 2. Heard Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the contempt petitioners(respondent Nos.5 to 7 in W.A.No.1558 of 2012) and Sri J.Dileep Kumar, learned counsel representing Smt.Sushma Yaganti, learned counsel for the respondent /contemnor (respondent No.4 in W.A.No.1558 of 2012). 3. The contempt petitioners, being aggrieved by the proceedings/order dated 29.12.2007 passed by the Joint Collector, Kadapa, filed W.P.No.1773 of 2008 before this Court, which was allowed vide judgment dated 21.10.2010. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under: "Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 29.12.2007 passed by respondent No. 1 is set aside. The order, however, does not preclude respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to initiate action against the petitioner, if according to them the D-Form patta produced by the petitioner is not genuine or he has violated any of the conditions thereof. However, before conducting any enquiry with regard to the 4 (RNT,J & MRK,J C.C. NO.1919 OF 2025) genuineness or otherwise of the D-Form patta or violations of the conditions of D-Form patta, if any, by the petitioner, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall issue notice to the petitioner and provide him an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed." 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2010, the unofficial respondents 4 and 5 in the writ petition No.1773 of 2008, filed Writ Appeal No. 1558 of 2012, which was dismissed, confirming the order of the learned single Judge in the writ petition. The operative part of the judgment dated 13.12.2024 reads as under: "The learned single judge was justified in allowing the writ petition. This bench finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned single judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed." 5. Thereafter, the respondent No.4-Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, who was respondent No.4 in W.A.No.1558 of 2012, passed proceedings vide Ref.No.A/215/2025, dated 03.07.2025, concluding that “the D-Form possessed by Sri Jinka Chandrayudu for the land in Survey No.236/A2, to an extent of Ac.5.02 cents of Rameswaram Village of Proddatur Mandal, is not genuine.” 6. Learned counsel for the contempt petitioners submits that the Mandal Revenue Officer has committed wilful disobedience of the order 5 (RNT,J & MRK,J C.C. NO.1919 OF 2025) passed in the writ appeal, whereby the order passed in the writ petition was confirmed. He submits that the proceedings dated 03.07.2025 are without jurisdiction and that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction or competence to pass such an order. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/contemnor submits that there is no disobedience of the order passed by this Court and that the proceedings dated 03.07.2025 were, in fact, passed in compliance with the directions issued by the writ Court. 8. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The direction issued in W.P.No.1773 of 2008, as reproduced above, clearly shows that the writ petition was allowed and the impugned order dated 29.12.2007 was set aside. However, this Court specifically observed that the order would not preclude respondent Nos.1 to 3 from initiating action against the petitioner, if, according to them, the D-Form patta produced by the petitioner was not genuine or if the petitioner had violated any of the conditions thereof. This Court further directed that, before conducting any enquiry with regard to the genuineness or otherwise of the D-Form patta or any violation of the conditions thereof, respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall issue notice to the petitioner and provide him an opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. 6 (RNT,J & MRK,J C.C. NO.1919 OF 2025) 10. The order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1558 of 2012 vide order dated 13.12.2024. 11. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.4, who was the Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, Proddatur, in W.P.No.1773 of 2008, passed the proceedings dated 03.07.2025. A perusal of the proceedings shows that an opportunity of hearing was afforded to the concerned parties before passing the order. 12. Learned counsel for the contempt petitioners, however, submits that the proceedings dated 03.07.2025 are without jurisdiction, as the Tahsildar is not the competent authority to pass such an order. He has also submitted that, even on merits, the findings recorded in the said proceedings cannot be sustained. 13. So far as the present Contempt Case is concerned, we are of the view that the proceedings dated 03.07.2025 cannot be said to constitute wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. On the contrary, the proceedings were passed pursuant to the liberty and directions contained in the order dated 21.10.2010 in W.P.No.1773 of 2008, which was subsequently affirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.A.No.1558 of 2012. 14. However, if the contention of the contempt petitioners is that the Tahsildar was not the competent authority to pass the proceedings dated 7 (RNT,J & MRK,J C.C. NO.1919 OF 2025) 03.07.2025, or that the said proceedings are otherwise vitiated on merits, it is open to them to avail the appropriate remedy available to them in accordance with law. 15. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the contempt petitioners from availing the appropriate remedy available to them in accordance with law against the proceedings dated 03.07.2025, including on the grounds of jurisdiction, competence of the authority and the merits of the findings recorded therein. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI, J _____________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date :11.09.2026. RPD. 8 (RNT,J & MRK,J C.C. NO.1919 OF 2025) 111 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM (CLOSED) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1919 OF 2025 Date: 11.09.2026 RPD. 9 (RNT,J & MRK,J C.C. NO.1919 OF 2025) -------- Thereafter, the respondent No.4-Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahsildar, in Appeal No. 1558 of 2012, has passed an order vide Ref. No.A/215/2025 dated 03.07.2025, which concludes that “the D-Form possessed by Sri Jinka Chandrayudu for the land in survey number 236/A2, extent Ac. 5.02 cents of Rameswaram village of Proddatur Mandal, is not genuine.”. Learned counsel for the contempt petitioners submits that the Mandal Revenue Officer has committed willful disobedience of the order passed in the writ appeal, confirming the order in the writ petition. He submits that the order is without jurisdiction, and the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no disobedience of the order of the writ court, and that the officer has passed the order, in fact, in compliance of the order passed by the writ court. We have considered the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. The direction in the writ petition No.1773 of 2008, as reproduced above, clearly shows that the petition is allowed. By order dated 29-12-2007, the impugned order in the writ petition was set aside. However, a further direction 10 (RNT,J & MRK,J C.C. NO.1919 OF 2025) was issued that the order has not precluded respondents 1 to 3 from initiating action against the petitioner if any. According to them, the D-Form patta produced by the petitioner is not genuine, or if he has violated any of the conditions thereon. However, before conducting any inquiry with respect to the genuineness or otherwise of the D-Form patta, or any violation of its conditions by the petitioner, respondents 1 to 3 shall issue a notice providing an opportunity to show cause against the action proposed. Respondent No.3 as Mandal Revenue Officer/ Proaddatur, Kadapa District, in Writ Petition No. 1773 of 2008. The order has been passed by the Tahsildar. A perusal of the order passed by the Tahsildar shows an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order is without jurisdiction, as the Tahsildar is not a competent authority. He has also submitted that, even on the merits, the order cannot be sustained. So far as the present contempt case is concerned, we are of the view that there is no violation of the order passed by the Tahsildar. In the writ court, the order has been passed only pursuant to the directions issued. However, in any case, if the submission is that the competent authority to pass the order is not a Tahsildar, and also that the order is vitiated on merits, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take the remedy available to them in accordance with law. 11 (RNT,J & MRK,J C.C. NO.1919 OF 2025) With the aforesaid direction, the contempt case is closed. 4. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs.