APHC010168642024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2035/2024 Between: Smt. Karibandi Surya Kumari and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND B Vanajakshi ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. K M KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for the willful disobedience of the orders dated 12.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.6289 of 2024. 2. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that this Court passed interim orders in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.6289 of 2024 directing the respondent-Tahsildar to keep the subject property in the Dispute Register, however, the Tahsildar has put the subject property in the dispute register with certain delay. In the meantime, the unofficial respondents have alienated the subject property to third parties. He further submitted that if respondent-Tahsildar has put the property in the dispute register in time, such alienation would not have been happened. As such, the respondent is liable for punishment and accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent on counter contended that this Court passed orders on 12.03.2024 and the same was dispatched on 18.03.2024 and a representation was also made by the petitioner on 18.03.2024 requesting to comply the orders of this Court and to put the subject property in the dispute register. The Tahsildar has put the subject property in dispute register on the very same day. As such, there is no contempt as alleged by the petitioners and the contempt is liable to be closed and prayed to close the contempt. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the subject property has been put in the dispute register on 18.03.2024. It is also not in dispute that the orders passed by this Court have been received by the Tahsildar on 18.03.2024 and on the very same day, she has put the subject property in the dispute register. As such, this Court do not find any willful disobedience as alleged by the petitioners. If at all the petitioners had any grievance against such alienation, they can take steps in that regard. In view of the reasons stated supra, the contempt case is liable to be closed. 7. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 17th April, 2025 RKS