APHC010473142022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3415/2022 Between: M/s. Sri Bhamsi Mines And Minerals and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND V G Venkata Reddy and Others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAMA MURTY P V S A Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. SYED KHADER MASTAN The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO:3415/2022 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 20.12.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.No.29864 of 2021 which is read as under : “Having regard to the nature of the prayer, without going into merits of petitioners case, respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider the online application 30-11-2017 and subsequent representations said to be submitted by the petitioners and pass an appropriate order in accordance with governing law and rules expeditiously but not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. No costs.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.1passed orders on 05.12.2022 itself by holding that the application of the petitioner No.1 for granting mines lease, cannot be considered and the same was rejected under Rule 12(5) (d) of APMMC Rules, 1966, for the reason that subject land against which the petitioner No.1 sought relief was already merged with other land situated in Sy.No.358 to an extent of Ac.60.00 cents against which mining lease was already granted in favour of 3rd party. 4. He further submitted that on earlier occasion, while disposing W.P No.21880 of 2009, dated 26.10.2016, this Court specifically observed that the patta land of the petitioner No.1 and the land against which lease was granted, as observed in the proceedings, is not over lapping and both are different properties. In view of the clear finding of this Court in W.P.No.21880 of 2019 vide order dated 26.10.2016, now disposing of the application of the petitioner No.1 on the ground that overlapping of the land of the petitioner No.1 with a 3rd party is contrary to the judgment rendered earlier by this Court dated 26.10.2016. Hence, respondents are liable to be punished under Section 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the counter is filed and also furnished a copy of proceedings No.3188438/D5-ELR/2019 issued by Director of Mines and Geology, dated 5.12.2022, wherein it is observed that application of the petitioner dated 30.11.2017 was rejected in respect of the land as mentioned in his application, ie., to an extent of Ac.8.00 cents in Sy.No.358/2 (Ac.3.237 Hectare). Accordingly, application of the petitioner No.1 was rejected since the land of the petitioner No.1 of Ac.08.00 cents in Sy.No.358/2 cannot be identified separately other than the lease land of Ac.60.00 cents of 3rd party. Accordingly, the application of the petitioner No.1 was disposed of, by holding that no mining lease can be granted. 6. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and on perusal of material placed on record and the proceedings of the respondents, dated 05.12.2022, the sole issue of the petitioners and respondents is whether the application of the petitioner as directed by this Court is considered in terms of the orders of this Court dated 20.12.2021 or not. As extracted supra, this Court has directed the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners dated 30.11.2017 and subsequently, representation if any, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. The orders of this Court is clear and categorical directing the respondents to consider the application of the petitioners and pass orders. Therefore the proceedings issued by the respondents dated 05.12.2022 is in consonance with the terms of the orders of this Court. Even though the petitioners were declared as pattadar in respect of land to an extent of Ac.8.00 cents in Sy.No.358/2, but it seems that there is no separate demarcation and bifurcation between the land of petitioners and leased land already granted by the respondents. It is for the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court below or by way of separate proceedings for identification of the property of the petitioners. Therefore the petitioners cannot seek more than what was directed by this Court. It is the settled proposition of law by Hon’ble Apex Court that in contempt cases, the Courts should be vigilant and should apply every word or act of the respondents and petitioners. Therefore, on perusal of order of this Court dated 20.12.2021 in W.P.No.29864 of 2021 as well as the proceedings dated 05.12.2022, it is made clear that orders of this Court are compiled with as directed. 8. Hence the contempt case against the respondents is closed it is for the petitioner to proceed further in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 11.02.2025 RSD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3415/2022 11.02.2025 RSD