Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010157872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE No: 873 of 2025 Between: 1. GUDLA NAGALAKSHMI, W/o.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC:CASHEW CULTIVATOR, R/o.KANCHERU VILLAGE, BHOGAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1. SRI R.P.SISODIA, S/o.NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. SMT DATIA KEERTHI, W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL GREENFIELD AIRPORT, BHOGAPURAM, VIZIANAGARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. SRI MAMIDIPALLI SURESH, S/o. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, BHOGAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1 03.07.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE No: 873 of 2025 GUDLA NAGALAKSHMI, W/o.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC:CASHEW CULTIVATOR, R/o.KANCHERU VILLAGE, BHOGAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA ...PETITIONER AND SRI R.P.SISODIA, S/o.NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, THE COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA SMT DATIA KEERTHI, W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER-CUM-LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL GREENFIELD AIRPORT, BHOGAPURAM, VIZIANAGARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. SRI MAMIDIPALLI SURESH, S/o. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, BHOGAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...CONTEMNOR(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA GUDLA NAGALAKSHMI, W/o.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC:CASHEW CULTIVATOR, R/o.KANCHERU VILLAGE, BHOGAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA ...PETITIONER SRI R.P.SISODIA, S/o.NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THE STATE OF ANDHRA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR, S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, THE COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA SMT DATIA KEERTHI, W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL GREENFIELD AIRPORT, SRI MAMIDIPALLI SURESH, S/o. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, BHOGAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...CONTEMNOR(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor(S):s 1. Mr.N SIVA REDDY 2. Mr.K M KRISHNA REDDY 3 The Court made the following order: Alleging violation of order dated 14.07.2023 in W.P.No.17261 of 2023, the present Contempt Case has been filed. Vide said order, a direction to maintain status quo with regard to writ petition subject property for a period of two weeks was granted. Subsequently, the order was extended on 26.12.2024 and the matter was directed to be listed on 06.03.2025. It appears that the writ petition itself was disposed of subsequently by an order dated 31.03.2026. 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, who inter alia submits that during subsistence of the interim orders, respondents 2 to 4 along with others on 27.02.2025 cut down cashew and coconut trees. He submits that as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, petitioner along with her family members planted cashew trees, dependent upon the income derived by cultivating the same and that by cutting down the cashew and coconut trees, the respondents interfered with the possession of the petitioner by violating the status quo orders and they are liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. 3. On the other hand, Mr.K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned Government Pleader while denying the said contentions submits that the petitioner was never in possession and enjoyment of writ petition subject matter land. In fact, he submits that the possession of land, which is admittedly a Government land was handed over to Andhra Pradesh Airport Development Corporation Limited long back and the same is in its possession. He submits that a reading of the petitioner’s affidavit would clearly establish that she is not owner of the 4 subject matter property and her status, if at all, may be an encroacher. He also denied the submission with regard to cutting of trees as alleged in the contempt petition. 4. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused material on record. 5. At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that the affidavit filed in support of the Contempt Case is vague and lacking in material particulars, more particularly with reference to number of trees alleged to have been cut down by respondents 2 to 4. Even in the writ petition, no details as to the number of trees planted / raised in an extent of Ac.2.57 cents, allegedly in peaceful possession of the petitioner were mentioned. Curiously, nothing is stated in the writ affidavit as to planting / raising of coconut trees by the petitioner. Further, though it was alleged in the Contempt Case that the respondents are blocking the petitioner from entering into land in question by constructing a wall and fencing and thereby violated the orders of the Court, no details are forthcoming as to when and to what extent construction and fencing over an area of Ac.2.75 cents was undertaken. That apart, to the reply-affidavits filed by respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner did not choose to file any rejoinder affidavit denying the specific assertions made by the respondents, thereby they remained un-rebutted. 6. In the aforementioned circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that on the basis of bald allegations, no case is made out and the petitioner failed to prima facie establish that the respondents have violated the orders of the 5 Court and such violation is willful and deliberate. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the prayer as sought for. 7. Accordingly, Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date : 03.07.2026 BLV Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA C.C.No.873 of 2025 Dt: 03.07.2026 BLV