APHC010246132021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1181 OF 2021 Between: 1. BALAJI THYADI, S/O SOTHYA THYADI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PR/0 P3 PURAM VILLAGE, PALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING IN FLAT COLONY, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM 1. SRIKESH B LATHKAR, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, SRIKAKULAM. 2. L MADHUSUDHANA RAO, TAHASILDAR, PALASA MANDAL, PALASA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. P SUBASH 1 Orders Reserved on Orders Pronounced on Orders Uploaded on IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1181 OF 2021 BALAJI THYADI, S/O SOTHYA THYADI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PR/0 P3 PURAM VILLAGE, PALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING IN FLAT NO.G7, BLOCK 0', WAMBE COLONY, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND SRIKESH B LATHKAR, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, SRIKAKULAM. L MADHUSUDHANA RAO, TAHASILDAR, PALASA MANDAL, PALASA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): Orders Reserved on : 26.02.2026. Orders Pronounced on : 15.06.2026. Orders Uploaded on : 17.06.2026. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA BALAJI THYADI, S/O SOTHYA THYADI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, PR/0 P3 PURAM VILLAGE, PALASA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM NO.G7, BLOCK 0', WAMBE ...PETITIONER SRIKESH B LATHKAR, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM L MADHUSUDHANA RAO, TAHASILDAR, PALASA MANDAL, ...CONTEMNOR(S): 2 The Court made the following ORDER: Petitioner filed W.P.No.3088 of 2021 seeking to declare action of respondents therein in taking possession of land of an extent of Ac.0-50 cents in Sy.No.22P in P.J.Puram Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, without issuing any notice and without paying compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and distributing the same to the beneficiaries under the scheme of Navaratnalau Pedalanadariki Illu and trying to dispossess him from the balance agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in Sy.No.22P as arbitrary, illegal etc., and for consequential directions. Pending disposal of Writ Petition, vide I.A.No.1 of 2021 he sought interim direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land of an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in the said Survey number. 2) On 09.02.2021, by way of interim direction respondents were directed not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1-00 cents in Sy.No.22P of P.J.Puram Village for a period of eight (08) weeks. Subsequently the said order was extended until further orders. 3) Alleging violation of the interim direction referred to above, present Contempt Case has been filed. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that a copy of the interim order was handed over in the office of the 2nd respondent on 3 23.04.2021. However, on 04.06.2021, 2nd respondent at the instance of 1st respondent made some markings, dug the land in Ac.1-00 cents in Sy.No.22P and deposited mud in the said land for the purpose of construction of houses, thereby the respondents not only interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the said extent of land, but also made it uncultivable. The said act of respondents amounts to willful and deliberate disobedience of the interim orders passed by the Court and therefore, they are liable to be punished under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel for 2nd respondent made submissions to impress upon the Court that there is no disobedience, much less willful disobedience on the part of 2nd respondent to the orders passed by this Court. He sought to explain the statements made in the reply affidavit dated 21.01.2022, filed by 2nd respondent and submits that an additional reply affidavit was filed seeking to clarify them, which are made inadvertently and missing of certain words in the sentences / averments gave scope to miscommunication of the version put forth. He submits that the 2nd respondent is offering unconditional and unqualified apology, that there is no intention to disobey or show any disrespect to the orders passed by the Court. He also submits that since vacate stay petition is pending, the Contempt Case may be heard along with main Writ Petition. In any event, learned counsel seeks dismissal of Contempt Case as there is no willful violation of orders passed by the Court. 4 6) This Court has considered the submissions made and perused material on record. 7) On an appreciation of the submissions made, the point that arises for consideration is “Whether the respondents are guilty of contempt of Courts Act for violation of interim directions granted in W.P.No.3088 of 2021? 8) At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that notice sent to the 1st respondent is not served. However, as the main allegation in the Contempt Case is against 2nd respondent and is represented by a counsel, this court is inclined to dispose of the matter. 9) It is needless to emphasize that scope in a Contempt Case is limited and the Court is required to see whether there is violation of the orders passed by it, if so, said violation is deliberate and amounts to willful disobedience. 10) Petitioner in support of plea of contempt that there is willful and wanton disobedience of orders dated 09.02.2021 made specific assertions in his affidavit. Initially 2nd respondent filed reply affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that an extent of Ac.5-45 cents in Sy.No.22 is classified as Agurla (Cheruvu) Tank, declared as Government Tank Poramboke and the said extent is included in 22A Register. It is also stated that petitioner herein is an encroacher of land of an extent of Ac.1-50 cents in the said Agurla Tank Bed Poramboke, the innocent petitioner got in to possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule land from 2/1978 onwards and sale deed dated 20.02.1978 contains overwritings / tampered. In a casual manner and without specific 5 denial to the averments in para 4 of the affidavit, at page No.5, Para 4 of reply, he stated as follows: “This averments are also not correct. The Government of A.P. launched Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu programme, issued suitable instructions to identify suitable government lands, this office executive staff were identified an extent of Ac.0-50 cts., out of the full extent Ac..5-34 cts., in the Agurla Tank bed land S.No.22 beyond submergible. As such the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali has also inspected the said land issued instructions to prepare layout plan and kept be ready for the distribution of house site pattas. This is the basic facts only but it was not taken forcibly in any kind in nature itself. Hence, the question of implementation of Interim Stay Order of the Court of Law is not necessary in this event. As is the identified site is purely government poramboke the implementation of Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu programme be implemented in due course itself.” 11) The above referred averments in the considered opinion of this Court are contemptuous, reflects the attitude of 2nd respondent, that he has no respect to the orders of the Court and Navaratnalu Pedalandariki Illu programme is sacrosanct. 12) It may also be pertinent to mention that even according to 2nd respondent, counter affidavit in the Writ Petition was filed on 04.04.2021, which goes to clearly establish that respondent authorities / 2nd respondent, in particular, is aware of the interim directions passed by the Court. Yet, on 05.06.2021, the grounding work was taken up by the Engineering Field staff, as per the orders / instructions of Government of Andhra Pradesh and District Collector (1st respondent), on the premise that land is purely Government 6 poramboke land, but not private land. This averment itself fortifies plea of learned counsel for petitioner that the orders of this Court have been violated deliberately. Be that as it may. 13) In the additional reply affidavit dated 21.01.2026, a new version was sought to be introduced alleging that petitioner on the basis of fake and forged documents is claiming the subject Government land to grab the same for self gain. Though a statement to the effect that the land of an extent of Ac.1-00 cents is under encroachment of petitioner and that the said land was not taken over was formally made, to the mind of the Court, it is only with a view to get over the contempt proceedings ingeniously. Had there been no interference in respect of the said extent of land, 2nd respondent would have specifically denied the allegations at the first instance instead of justifying his action on the basis of so called instructions of the Government / 1st respondent, which is not supported by any material. On the contrary, the stand appears to be that as it is purportedly Government Poramboke (Cheruvu tank), there is no requirement to implement the interim directions, which cannot be countenanced. Even assuming that it is Government Poramboke, 2nd respondent and the concerned authorities can deal with land of an extent of Ac.1-00 cents after getting the interim orders vacated and thereafter by following due process / procedure contemplated under law, but not otherwise. The conduct of the 2nd respondent in interfering with the possession of subject matter land in spite of the interim direction, amounts to willful disobedience and his conduct in trying to justify his acts and actions by filing affidavits with 7 contradictory versions would clearly indicate that the apologies offered are without remorse and only namesake. 14) On a due consideration of the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made on behalf of 2nd respondent are rejected. Accordingly, this Court holds that he is guilty of willful disobedience of the orders dated 09.02.2021 and as such liable for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. 15) So far as punishment is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sebastian M. Hongray Vs. Union of India1, inter alia held that for the violation of the orders, imprisonment and fine can be imposed. That apart, costs can also be levied. 16) In Kapildeo Prasad Sah and others Vs. State of Bihar and Others2 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inter alia opined as follows: “9. …. Judicial orders are to be properly understood and complied with. Even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience particularly when the attention of the person is drawn to the court’s orders and its implications. Disobedience of the court’s order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which our system of governance is based. Power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of effective legal system. It is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice.” 17) In E.T.Sunup Vs. C.A.N.S.S.Employees Association and another3 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inter alia opined as follows: “16. It has become a tendency with the government officers to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of court and try to take recourse tone 1 (1984) 3 SCC 82 2 (1999) 7 SCC 569 3 (2004) 8 SCC 683 8 justification or other. This shows complete lack of grace in accepting the orders of the Court. This tendency of undermining the Court’s order cannot be countenanced.” 18) In the light of the expressions of the Apex Court and having found that 2nd respondent is guilty of Contempt of Court, the Contempt Case is allowed against him with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable personally to the petitioner, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. In addition, the 2nd respondent / contemnor is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of One (01) week and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only). In default of payment of fine, contemnor shall undergo further two (02) days of Simple Imprisonment. 19) Operation of this Order is suspended for a period of four weeks to enable the 2nd respondent / contemnor to prefer an appeal, if he is so advised. NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date:15.06.2026 Ssv 9 HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CC No.1181 OF 2021 Date:15.06.2026 Ssv