APHC010548892024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4508/2024 Between: 1. S SANTHAMMA, W/O T SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/O PACHARUMAKULAPALLEVILLAGE, RAMAKUPPAM MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2. AMARAMMA,, W/O MUNUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O PACHARUMAKULAPALLE VILLAGE, RAMAKUPPAM MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SUMITH KUMAR IAS, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 2. K SRINIVASULA RAJU, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KUPPAM CHITTOOR DISTRICT 3. V BABU, THE TAHSILDAR, RAMAKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 4. M SURESH BABU, MANDAL SURVEYOR, RAMAKUPPAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 5. VIKAS MARAMAT, SPECIAL OFFICER, KUPPAM AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (KADA), KUPPAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 6. REDDY SEKHAR, , ASI, THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,RAMAKUPPAM POLICE STATION, RAMAKUPPAM 2 MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ...CONTEMNOR(S): 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 may be pleased to punish the respondents/Contemners herein for his willful violation and deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by this Honble Court in WP No. 18870 of 2024 dated 28.08.2024 under sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to discharge the Respondent No.6 herein from the Contempt Petition in CC No. 4508 of 2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K DAVID RAJU Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. SOMA RAJU YELISETTI The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO:4508 OF 2024 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 28.08.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.18870 of 2024. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioners herein is that the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in utter violation of the orders dated 28.08.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.18870 of 2024 got demolished cattle shed along with hay stack 17.11.2024 situated at land in Sy.No.15/3 situated at Pacharumakulapalle Village and Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District against which the petitioners were granted possession certificates. He further submits that this Court on 28.08.2024 passed an order holding that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the subject land pursuant to the possession certificate said to have been issued by the then Tahsildar and specifically directed the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner without following due process of law. He further submits that without adhering to the due process of law as directed by this Court, respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein are in violation of the orders of this Court by demolishing cattle shed and hay stack. Therefore,respondent Nos. 2 4 to 4 are liable for punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents filed counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.3, wherein, it is clearly and categorically submitted at para No.5 as follows: “It is submitted that the land in Sy.No.15/3, total extent 0.24 cents is Government land as per Fair Adangal of Pancharumakulapalli Village. This land was assigned as DKT with No.703/4/70 and got registered in the name of Sri.Syedsaheb vide Notional Khata No.600020. But the same is under possession and enjoyment of one Shri Krishnappa, S/o. (Late) Chowappa. He was constructed a house, dug a borewell and also planted 15 coconut trees. He fenced that land with mesh cloth fencing with stone pillars around this land. The Petitioners have obtained manual possession certificates from the then Tahsildar, Ramakuppam vide No.98/2023 and 99/2023, dt. 08.11.2023 to an extent of 0.02 cents each in the land in Sy.No.15/3. The above Possession Certificates are not traced out in the office records and no round seal is affixed in the above Possession Certificates. The Petitioners have shown the site in their possession as per Certificates issued to them in the land in Sy.No.26 which is classified as"bandidaari". It is also noticed that one Shri Krishnappa, S/o. Late Chowdappahas started construction of Gokulam shed by occupying nearly 0.03 cents in the land in Sy.No.26 which is bandidaari. Therefore action taken to remove unauthorized encroachment made by Shri Krishnappa in Sy.No.26, extn. 0.03 cents. But the Writ Petitioners have suppressed the real facts and filed the Writ Petition. Therefore the question of dispossession of the Petitioners from Sy.No. 15/3 does not arise, as they have no enjoyment at all in Sy.No.15/3. 5 They are claiming the land in Sy.No.26 with regard to the Possession Certificates.Thus respondents never interfered with the land in Sy.No.26 of Pancharumakulapal Village of Ramakuppammandal. Hence, the question of violation of order ofHon'ble Court does not arise.” 5. He further submits that even though the petitioners were issued enjoyment certificate/ possession certificate in respect of Sy.No.15/3 but they occupied the land in Sy.No.26 which is classified as Bandi Dari, therefore, the respondents took steps for removal of the encroachments in respect of land in Sy.No.26 i.e., Bandi Dari and respondents did not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner in Sy.No.15/3. He further alleged that the alleged enjoyment certificates issued by the then Tahsildar were fabricated and the same were confirmed by the district collector vide his proceedings dated 05.04.2025. Therefore, the very basis for the possession of the petitioners in respect of land in Sy.No.15/3 is by way of fraud and fabricated. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief once the basis for claim/ right is pursuant to the fabricated document. 6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. On perusal of the material filed by the petitioner along with the contempt affidavit especially the photographs placed at page Nos. 19 to 23, it is observed that the photographs are not tallying from one page to another page. Pg.No. 19 of the affidavit contains land abutting to the road margin. Pg.Nos.20, 21 consisting of vacant land and there are so many rock and iron pillars and bounded by a green shade cloth. Pg.No. 22 contains a JCB. Pg.No.23 contains a 6 hay stack. These photographs itself indicates that the land against which the petitioner claims his possession is not one and the same. As contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioners were granted enjoyment certificates in respect of Sy.No.15/3 but they occupied the land in Sy.No.26 which is classified as bandidari. It is further observed that this Court directed the respondents to follow due process of law in respect of land in Sy.No.15/3 but the respondents followed the procedure for removal of the obstructions in respect of land in Sy.No.26 which is classified as bandidari. 7. In view of the clear and categorical submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents in their counter affidavit, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner did not make out any contempt against the respondents as required under Sections 10 to 12 of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In view of the same, the contempt case cannot be enforced. 8. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 16.04.2026 BSP 7 73 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) Contempt Case No.4508 of 2024 16.04.2026 BSP