APHC010294512024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3316/2024 Between: 1. SHAIK FATHIMA,, W/O. SHAIK AHMAD BASHA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. A.KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, C. S PURAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. SHAIK BEEBEE,, W/O. SHAIK JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. A.KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, C. S PURAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. SHAIK RAHMAT BEE,, W/O. ABDUL KHADAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. A.KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, C. S PURAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. SHAIK BEBEJAN,, W/O. RASOOL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. A.KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, C. S PURAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. JAAN ARWIN, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KANIGIRI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. NAGOOR MEERA VALI, THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, CHANDRASEKHARAPURAM (C.S. PURAM), PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...CONTEMNOR(S): 2 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 under Section 10 TO 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilful disobedience by not surveying the land as directed by the Hon'ble Court by its order W.P.N0.2756 of 2024, dated 05-02-2024 passed by Sri Justice NIMMAGADDA VENKATESWARULU and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAJA REDDY KONETI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. SOMA RAJU YELISETTI The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3316 of 2024 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 05.02.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.2756 of 2024. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint of the petitioners herein is that even though this Court directed the respondents to conduct survey of the subject property and fix the boundaries, but the respondents conducted survey only, and not fixed the boundaries. As such the respondents deviated from the orders of this Court. He further submits that even though this Court specifically directed the respondents to conduct survey and fix the boundaries within a period of six weeks, the respondents did not conduct the survey within the time period as directed by this Court. Hence, the respondents are liable for punishment under Sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. On the other hand, the second respondent herein filed counter- affidavit, wherein it is stated as under: I further submitted that the writ petitioners herein have never cultivated subject land and it is covered with thick jungle and also there is a title dispute between writ petitioner herein and also one other resident of 4 Ambavaram Kothapalli village of Chandrasekharapuram Mandal on subject lands covered by Sy.No.80/2, 80/3, 80/4 and 80/5 as per the available Field Measurement Book No.138. I further submitted that this respondent placed on suspension on 02.08.2024. Thereafter on 08.08.2024. The present Tahsildar Chandrasekharapuram Mandal has issued notices to the writ petitioners on 05.12.2024 and also conducted the survey of the land covered by Sy.No.80/2, 80/3, 80/4 and 80/5 situated in A.Kothapalle village, Chandrasekharapuram and the same was informed to the petitioner vide endorsement No.Rc.B/166/2024, dated 11.12.2024 and the same served to the writ petitioners herein through Registered post (appended). 5. The learned counsel for the respondents draws the attention of this Court to the endorsement issued by the respondents after conducting survey dated 11.12.2024 and also panchanama dated 10.12.2024 under which the respondents fixed the boundaries after completion of the survey. The same was informed by the respondents to the petitioners by way of endorsement dated 11.12.2024 as mentioned above. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that in view of the compliance of the order of this Court in conducting survey and fixing boundaries and the same was informed to the petitioners by way of endorsement dated 11.12.2024 and panchanama dated 10.12.2024, there is no deviation to the order of this Court and the respondents have complied with the orders dated 05.02.2024 of this Court in W.P.No.2756 of 2024. He further submits that if this Court comes to conclusion that the orders did not comply within the time frame fixed by this Court and the respondents caused some delay in complying the orders, the respondents had expressed their unconditional apology for the 5 delay committed by them in compliance of the orders of this Court, therefore, this Court may take lenient view regarding the delay since the respondents expressed their un-conditional apology for the delay committed by them. 6. For determination whether the respondents committed any Contempt of Court or not, this Court inclined to extract the order of this Court as under: Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition can be disposed of, directing the respondents to conduct survey of the subject property and fix the boundaries within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 7. On perusal of the order of this Court, this Court specifically directed the respondents herein to conduct survey and fix the boundaries within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. On perusal of the record, it appears that the order of this Court was communicated and served upon the respondents on 27.02.2024. Therefore, the respondents shall comply the orders of this Court within a period of six weeks, accordingly, it should be complied with on or before 14.04.2024. On perusal of the counter affidavit as well as the endorsement issued by the respondents which indicates that the subject survey has been conducted on 09.12.2024 and also on 10.12.2024, which is in delay of eight months. It is further observed that on perusal of the endorsement dated 11.12.2024 as well as panchanama conducted by the second respondent dated 10.12.2024, the respondents herein failed in complying the orders of this 6 Court in conducting survey and also in fixing the boundaries within the time prescribed, but complied with as directed. The same is also recorded vide panchanama dated 10.12.2024. The alleged disobedience on the part of the respondents is only regarding delay in compliance of the order of this Court. In view of the unconditional apology was offered by the second respondent herein for the delay caused in complying the orders of this Court, this Court inclined to take a lenient view regarding the delay committed by the respondents. Therefore, in view of the reasons stated above, there is neither disobedience on the part of the respondents nor any violation was made out by them. Therefore, no further orders are necessary to be passed and liable to be closed. 8. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 24.06.2025 ssjj 7 116 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3316 of 2024 24.06.2025 ssjj