APHC010222582024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: Between: A.Jayamma Sri S K Ameed Basha and others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAZID KALLUR Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. K M KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following order: This Contempt Case is Courts Act, 1971 against the respondent dated 12.01.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2. Heard Sri Sazid Kallur Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, leaned counsel for the respondents. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3010/2024 ...PETITIONER AND Sri S K Ameed Basha and others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Contemnor(S): K M KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following order: This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Act, 1971 against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1162 of 2024 Heard Sri Sazid Kallur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, leaned counsel for the respondents. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER ...CONTEMNOR(S) filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of for willful disobedience of the order 1162 of 2024. , learned counsel for the petitioner and 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent authorities have not complied the directions of this Court dated 12.01.2024 in Writ Petition No.1162 of 2024. As such, prayed to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of the orders of this Court. 4. Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents while reiterating the contents of the affidavits of the respondents submitted that in compliance with the directions of this Court dated 12.02.2024, the Tahsildar, Chennakothapalli has issued notice vide Roc.No.A/49/2024 dated 15.03.2024 duly informing that survey would be conducted on 04.04.2024. Since the entire Mandal Administration was involved in preparation work for conducting elections, the survey could not be materialized. However, after date of polling on 13.05.2024, the Tahsildar, Chennekothapalli has again issued notice dated 21.05.2024 by duly proposing to conduct survey on 25.05.2024 with regard to the subject land. All the interested persons and the land owners in boundary line with the subject land including the petitioner have attended for measurement of boundary lines and during survey, majority boundary line owners have stated that the petitioner never entered upon the land and undertaken cultivation. Accordingly, the petitioner was informed by the Tahsildar through endorsement dated 14.06.2024 duly highlighting the facts of the issue. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed the present petition duly suppressing the facts in order to gain wrongfully. The said endorsement was placed on record and has drawn the attention of this Court to the same. 3 5. To the said submission, Sri Sazid Kallur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the authority has not dealt the petitioner’s F-line application in true spirit and it amounts to disobedience of the orders of this Court. Hence, prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioner. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 7. This Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition No.1162 of 2024 dated 12.01.2024, has directed the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s F-line application dated 01.12.2023 in accordance with law within a period of 30 working days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The endorsement dated 14.06.2024 which is filed along with the counter would indicate that there is no enjoyment of subject land by the petitioner and previously in the year 1986 lay out had been made for NGO’s House sites and as per the Government instructions, within 3 kms from the Mandal Head Quarters, there is no provision for assignment and endorsement to that effect has already given to the petitioner through registered post, dated 15.06.2024. The said endorsement would indicate that the authorities have duly complied the orders of this Court. 8. In view of the above and taking the submissions of both the learned counsel and the endorsement dated 14.06.2024 issued by the Tahsildar into consideration, as the authorities have complied the directions of this Court, 4 there is no element of contempt as alleged by the petitioner, the Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to question the endorsement dated 14.06.2024 before appropriate forum in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Contempt Case, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 29.01.2025 MP 5 264 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO:3010 of 2024 Date: 29.01.2025 MP 6