APHC010493402024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI '7 i ^ Irs !: w M TUESDAY THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4206 OF 7n9d JUNE .15 Vi *1 ^11 X RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD 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 be pleased to direct notice to the may respondent and punish the respondent for Honourable Court passed in W.P.No. willful violation of the orders of this 19383 of 2024, dated 12-09-2024 Between; Bhumarapu Jayaramaiah, S/o Agriculture, Resident of H.No.40/6-A, Village and Mandal, Annamayya District. B.Ramanna, Aged about 46 Burraladinnepalli, years, Occ H/o T.Sundupalli ...Petitioner AND Tahsildar, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI VUTUPALLI ...Respondent RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent :SRI J DILEEP KUMAR The Court made the following: Order 1 APHC010493402024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4206 OF 2024 Between: 1.BHUMARAPU JAYARAMAIAH, S/0 B.RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 RESIDENT OF H.NO.40/6-A, H/0 T.SUNDUPALLI VILLAGE AND YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE BURRALADINNEPALLI MANUAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. TAHSILDAR, T.Sundupalli Mandal, Annamayya District. ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VUTUPALLI RAJANNA Counsel for the Contemner: 1.J DILEEP KUMAR The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Vutupalli Rajanna, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri T. Sanjeeva Rao, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri J. Dilip Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent. Vide Order dated 12.09.2024 in W.P.No.19383 of 2024, this Court had directed the Tahsildar to act on the F-Line Application submitted by 2. w 2 the Writ Petitioner dated 18.04.2024 within a period of four weeks from the date of the said Order. The present Contempt Case is filed by the Petitioner stating that direction of this Court in Para-3 of the Order dated 12.09.2024 in W.P.No. 19383 of 2024 has not been complied with. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent has filed Counter-Affidavit stating that the Order of this Court has been complied with. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the urgent Memo issued by the Tahsildar to the Mandal Surveyor on 09.11.2024 to conduct the survey and also to the Petitioner on the same date. Subsequently, the Mandal Survey Officer had visited the subject site on 24.11.2024 by issuing Notice to the neighbouring land owners as well as to the Petitioner and prepared a Report stating that a Report has already been prepared by the District Land Survey Officer (D.L.S.O), Annamayya District after conducting the survey and after making measurements in the Proceeding No. A3/1119/2023 dated 20.07.2024. It is also stated in the Proceeding recorded by the Mandal Survey Officer on 25.11.2024 that the neighbours also have objected for conduct of survey on the basis that the survey has already been conducted earlier in respect of the Survey No.394 by the District Land Survey Officer. For these reasons only, the Mandal Survey Officer, despite having visited the site, did not conduct the survey. 3. 4. This Court has perused the Report submitted by the Mandal Survey Officer dated 25.11.2024 and also earlier Notice issued by the Mandal Surveyor on various dates including on 26.12.2024 and 02.01.2025. 5. Although, the Counter-Affidavit states that the survey could not be conducted because the details have not been mentioned in the registered Sale Deed purchased by the Writ Petitioner, a copy of the Sale Deed would indicate that the boundaries were in fact mentioned clearly in the Sale Deed. In fact the Order of this Court is only directing the Respondent Authorities in issuing advance notices to all the parties and having visited the subject area the scheduled date and having recorded that the District Land Survey on / 3 Officer has already conducted a survey and the neighbouring land owners have objected to it. 6. In view of the above facts, this Court is satisfied that the Respondent Authorities have complied with the direction given by this Court in Para-3 of the Order dated 12.09.2024. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there is no contempt in the present petition. 7. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this / order. Sd/-K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, T.Sundupairi Mandal, Annamayya District 1. Tahsildar, 2. One CC to Sri. Vutupalli Rajanna Advocate [OPUC] Sri. J Diieep Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to 4. Two CD Copies MKP NM HIGH COURT DATED:24/06/2025 ORDER CC 4206/2024 Sf 2 5 SEP 2025 V^«jjntntSectiofl> DISMISSING THE CONTEMPT CASE