IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI TUESDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CONTEMPT APPEAL Nos. 1 and 2 of 2015 CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 1 OF 2015 Appeal under Section 19 (1) (a) of Contempt Courts Act, aggrieved by the Order of the learned single Judge dated:18-03-2015 made in C.C.No.1209 of 2014. Between: G. Mallikarjuna Prasad, The Assistant Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kadapa ...Appellant/Contemnor No.1 AND B. Veerabhadra Reddy, S/o Pedda Veera Reddy, Aged about 71 years, R/o Chiyyapadu Village, Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa district. ...Respondent/Contempt petitioner LA. NO: 1 OF 2015fAPPL. NO: 324 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances 'Stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be *‘ ,V- ^pleased to suspend the operation of the order of the learned single judge, Dated: 18-03-2015, made in Contempt Case No.1209 of 2014 in C.M.A. MP.No.1508 of 2013 in C.M.A. No.675 of 2013 pending disposal of the above Contempt Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI Counsel for the Appellant: SRI G RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P RAJASEKHAR CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 2 OF 2015 Appeal under Section 19 (1)(a) R/w 36 of the Contempt of Courts Act, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18-03-2015 made in C.C.No.1209 of 2014. Between: Cheruku Sankara Balaji, Executive Officer, Sri Sadhu Annasatram, K.M. Palli Village, B. Matham Mandal, Kadapa District. ...Appellant/Contemnor No.2 AND B. Veerabhadra Reddy, S/o Pedda Veera Reddy, Aged about 71 years R/o Chiyyapadu Village, Chapadu Mandal, Kadapa District. ...Respondent/Contempt Petitioner .r / I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(APPL. NO: 325 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may pe pleased to suspend the operation of the order of the learned single judge, dated;18-03-2015, made in Contempt Case No.1209 of 2014 in C.M.A. MP.No.1508 of 2013 in C.M.A.No.675 of 2013 pending disposal of the above Contempt Appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI G RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT % APHC010304212015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3508] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 1/2015 Between: ...APPLICANT G. Mallikarjuna Prasad, AND ...RESPONDENT B Veerabhadra Reddy CONTEMPT APPEAL NO: 2/2015 Between: ...APPLICANT Cheruku Sankara Balaji AND ...RESPONDENT B Veerabhadra Reddy Counsel for the Applicant: 1.G RAMANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1.P RAJASEKHAR 2 RRR,J & HN,J C.A.Nos.l&2of2015 The Court made the following Common Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Both these Appeals are being disposed of, by way of this common judgment as they arise out of a common order, dated 18.03.2015, in C.C.No.1209 of 2014. The 1®' respondent, in these Appeals, was the tenant of Sri Sadhu Annasatram, K.M.Pally Village, B. Matham Mandal, Kadapa District, to an extent of Ac.5.04 cents of agricultural wet land in Sy.Nos.615/1 & 2 of K.M. Pally Village. The 1®' respondent, was declared to be an encroacher, by the Endowments Tribunal, in O.A.No.815 of 2010, by an order, dated 22.04.2013. A direction for eviction of the 1®’ respondent was also passed in this order. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the 1®‘ respondent had approached the 3. erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by way of C.M.A.No.675 of 2013. On 26.08.2013, an order was passed in C.M.A. M.P. No.1508 of 2013, staying all further proceedings pursuant to the Order of the Tribunal including eviction of the 1®‘ respondent. On 25.06.2014, the appellants herein, had recorded a panchanama, to that effect, the 1®* respondent was evicted from the said property. This panchanama, is said to contain the signature of the appellant in C.A.No.1 of 4. 2015. Thereafter, a notification, dated 26.06.2014, is said to have been issued for conduct of a public auction of leasehold rights over the land on 30.06.2014. However, the said auction did not go through. 3 RRR,J & HN,J C.A.Nos.l & 2 of 2015 actions, approached this contending that the appellants herein, of Andhra Pradesh, dated 26,08.2013 and require to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. 5. The 1®’ respondent, being aggrieved by these Court, by way of C.C.No.1209 of 2014, had violated the orders of the erstwhile High Court 6. A learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides counter-affidavits filed by the appellants herein, had held that, 26.08.2013, passed by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra and considering the the order, dated Pradesh, had been sent to the appellants by way of registered post with acknowledgment that, it is deemed to have been Judge, after giving this finding of this fact. due and received by the appellants. The learned Single had held that, the actions of the respondent and the conduct were in clear violation of the directions appellants in going through the eviction of the 1 of a public auction over the said land, of the erstwhile High Court, dated Contempt of Court and sentenced both the 26.08.2013 and convicted them for appellants to an imprisonment for a period of three months along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. Aggrieved by this order, both the 7. appellants have moved Contempt Appeal Nos.1 and 2 of 2015. 8. Sri A. Srikanth Reddy and Sri G. Ramana Rao, learned counsels appearing for the appellants In Contempt Appeal Nos.1 and 2 of 2015 respectively, assail the order of the learned Single Judge , on various grounds. 9. It is contended that, the acknowledgment due. notice sent under registered post with was not received by the appellants. The learned RRR,J & HN,J '< C.A.Nos.l & 2 of 2015 counsel, would point out to the finding of the learned Single Judge that, sent under registered post with acknowledgment received by the Court. The learned unaware of the Orders though the order copy was due, no acknowledgment card was counsel would also contend that, the appellants were of the Court, dated 26.08.2013, until the 1"' respondent had produced the said when the auction proceedings had been initiated. The order on 30.06.2014 contend that, the appellants had immediately violation of the Orders of the willful intention to violate the Orders of this learned counsel would also stopped the auction and as such, there was no Court much less deliberate or Court. Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel appearing for the 1"' respondent, on the other hand, would contend that, this version of facts is not believable. He would contend that, the notice of the order was definitely received by the taken for possession of the land or for 10. appellants, much before steps were conduct of a pubiic auction. He would also contend that, there is no reason to learned Single Judge that, service of the notice of differ with the finding of the 26.08.2013, would have to be taken to be counsel further contends that, the 1*' respondent 25.06.2014 and the Order of the Court, dated complete. The learned keeping quiet, while he was being dispossessed, on producing the order copy, dated 26.08.2013, only on 30.06.2014, at the stage who is seeking to protect of auction, is not the normal conduct of any person his rights over the land. 5 RRR,J & HN,J C.A.Nos.l & 2 of 2015 A conspectus of the facts would show that, there was a proceeding showing dispossession of the 1®* respondent, on 25.06.2014 and an attempt to conduct a public auction, on 30.06.2014, by way of a notification, issued on 11. 26.06.2014. The version of the appellants that, they had no notice of this order 12. cannot be believed for two reasons: Firstly, the fact that notice of the order was sent by the erstwhile (i). High Court itself under registered post with acknowledgment due, is sufficient to hold that, notice has been served on the appellants. Secondly, even if such notice had not been received, it is difficult to accept the contention of the appellants that, the 1®‘ respondent was silent about the order of the High Court and allowed himself to be dispossessed (ii). from the land, on 25.06.2014 and produced the order within four days thereafter, on 30.06.2014, to stop the auction. For all the aforesaid reasons, we affirm the judgment of the learned 13. Single Judge, on the question of violation of the Orders of this Court and the Commission of an Act of Contempt of Court. However, keeping in view the unconditional apology by the appellants 14. and the fact that, the respondent continues to be in possession of the land, we would take a lenient view and alter the sentence to a fine of Rs.2,000/- each only. It is made clear that the sentence relating to imprisonment is set aside. / 6 RRR,J & HN,JI % C.A.Nos.l & 2 of 2015 if any shall stand As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending closed. E KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR Sd/- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Pradesh at Amaravathi R irdv S/o Pedda Veera Reddy, Aged about 71 years, Veerabhadra Reddy, S/o Peaoa R/o Chiyyapadu Village, Chapadu Mandal, Kadap Rao Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra 1 The Registrar(Judicial) 2. B. 3. OneCCto Sri. G Ramana CC to Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati Advocate [OPUCl Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri P Rajasekhar 5. One 6. The Section Officer, Amaravathi 7 jhe Section Officer Amaravathi 8. Three CD Copies Court of Andhra Pradesh at Accounts Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at ^ OS Section, High Stu vna HIGH COURT DATED:04/02/2025 ^oiF AND/f^ COMMON JUDGMENT CA.Nos.1 & 2 of 2015 10 MAR 2025 «9> ^ . Current Section ^ DISPOSING OF THE CONTEMPT APPEALS