APHC010365202024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 111/2025 Between: Avula Murali Krishna and Others Sreenivasulu and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. DHARANI KUMAR B 2. 1 CC.No.111 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 111/2025 Avula Murali Krishna and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Sreenivasulu and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Contemnor(S): DHARANI KUMAR B RC, J CC.No.111 of 2025 [3332] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI ...PETITIONER(S) ...CONTEMNOR(S) 2 RC, J CC.No.111 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 111/2025 The Court made the following Order: This Contempt Case is filed under Section 10 to 12 of The Contempt of Courts Act against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 10.05.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.10982 of 2024. 02. Heard Sri M.K.Raj Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Dharani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 03. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that when the excavation taking place in the petitioners land, the petitioners filed a W.P.No.10982 of 2024, before this Court and in I.A.No.01 of 2024 in W.P.No.10982 of 2024, this Court granted interim orders directing the respondents to see that no excavation takes place in the petitioners property, pending further orders. Knowing pretty well, the 3rd respondent sent a communication to the 2nd respondent vide proceeding Lr.No.164E dated 17.08.2024 requesting him to grant permission for lifting and transportation of soil to a tune of 160.00 cubic meters from the petitioners subject 3 RC, J CC.No.111 of 2025 land to agriculture lands in Mamillapalli. In view of the orders of this Court, that no excavation should take place, issuing such proceedings to the 2nd respondent amounts to willful and deliberate violation of the orders of this Hon’ble Court. He further submitted that in the counter filed by the respondents, the proceedings dated 24.08.2024 categorically mentioned about granting of interim orders by this Hon’ble Court by mentioning the survey number of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners’ prays that the respondents be punished for their willful disobedience of the Court's orders. 04. On the other hand, Sri Dharani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents on counter contended that, the authorities have given permission to lift the silt from foreshore area of Pabbapuram tank near Mamillapalli village in C.K.Dinne Mandal of YSR Kadapa District for a quantity of 800.00 cum (Eight Hundred Cubic Meters only) with certain conditions. In that proceedings, it was categorically mentioned that permission was not granted in the petitioners subject property i.e., in the Sy.No.118/1 to an extent of Ac.18.00 cents of Pabbapuram Village, C.K.Dinne Mandal, YSR District. The authorities have great respect to the orders passed by this Court and no 4 RC, J CC.No.111 of 2025 excavation is being made in the petitioners land. There is no willful disobedience as alleged by the petitioners in the present contempt case and it is liable to dismissed and prayed to dismiss the contempt case. 05. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have categorically stated that the land has not been sub- divided and in the said circumstances they cannot say that the excavation is not taking place in the petitioners land, accordingly prayed to punish the contemnors. 06. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 07. This Court, granted interim orders in I.A.No.01 of 2024 in W.P.No.10982 of 2024 which reads as follows: “Heard When the matter is taken up for consideration today, Sri G.Venkat Reddy, learned Standing Counsel on instructions submitted that, as alleged by the petitioners, the respondents are not excavating any gravel in the petitioners subject property. To the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, even today, the excavations 5 RC, J CC.No.111 of 2025 are taking place by the respondents and accordingly prayed to pass orders protecting the interest of the petitioners. To strike the balance and in order to meet the ends of justice, this Court is inclined to grant the following interim order: The respondents are directed to see that no excavation takes place in the petitioners’ subject property, pending further orders.” 08. The present contempt case has been filed stating that inspite of interim orders granted by this Court, the authorities/contemnors have issued proceedings vide Lr.E.No.164E dated 17.08.2024 for lifting of soil from Pabbapuram Tank to Agriculture lands in Mamilapalli, as such the authorities have disobeyed the orders of this Court. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the counter, the authorities have also filed a memo No.TW/ATO/Sand dated 24.08.2024 permitting to lift silt from the petitioners land, as such it amounts to violation of the orders of this Court. 09. A perusal of the said proceedings vide Lr.E.No.164E dated 17.08.2024 and memo No.TW/ATO/Sand dated 24.08.2024 would indicate that there is a tank called Pabbapuram tank and 6 RC, J CC.No.111 of 2025 the authorities had granted permission for lifting and transportation of soil to a tune of 160.00 cubic meters from the Pabbapuram Tank to agriculture lands. In the said proceedings it was categorically stated that the silting is not permitted in the petitioner’s subject property in Sy.No.118/1 to an extent of Ac.18.00 cents of Pabbapuram Village, C.K.Dinne Mandal, YSR District, as the case is in the High Court. There is no material placed on record to show that the concerned persons are excavating the soil from the petitioners land situated in Sy.No.118/1. Basing on the proceedings placed on record, this Court cannot come to a conclusion that excavation is taking place in the petitioners’ subject land. Infact, the authorities have cautioned in the proceedings not to silt/excavate the soil in petitioner’s subject property in Sy.No.118/1 to an extent of Ac.18.00 cents of Pabbapuram Village, C.K.Dinne Mandal, YSR District. There is no disobedience of the interim orders passed by this Court by the respondents as alleged by the petitioners in the present case. If at all the petitioners have any grievance against the proceedings referred supra, he can approach competent authority. 7 RC, J CC.No.111 of 2025 Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 08th April, 2025 KKV 8 RC, J CC.No.111 of 2025 117 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Contempt Case No:111 of 2025 08.04.2025 KKV 9 RC, J CC.No.111 of 2025 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Contempt Case No.111 of 2025 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No. Date ORDER OFFICE NOTE 08.04.2025 RC, J The contempt case is dismissed. (vide separate order) ______ RC, J KKV