APHC010180852025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 934/2025 Between: 1. KODA MUSALAIAH NAIDU, S/O. LATE K.APPANNA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC- RETD. AIR FORCE EMPLOYEE, R/O. FLAT NO.228, BLOCK NO.3, PHASE-3, JANAPRIYA APARTMENT, BOLARAM, ALWAL, MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DISTRICT - 500010 ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI APPAYYA RAJU, The Tahsildar Santabommali Mandal Srikakulam District ...CONTEMNOR 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 may be pleased to may be pleased to punish the respondents herein under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for wilful mis-implementation of the order of the Honble Court dated 29.10.2024 in W.P.No.20967 of 2024 passed by the Honble Sri Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. POPURI LAKSHMI PRIYANVITA Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. J DILEEP KUMAR 2 The court made the following ORDER: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present contempt case is filed against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for willful disobedience and mis-implementation of the order of this Court dated 29.10.2024 in W.P. No. 20967 of 2024. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court, by its order dated 29.10.2024 in W.P. No. 20967 of 2024, specifically directed the respondents to consider the F-line application submitted by the petitioner and to conduct a survey and demarcation of the landed property admeasuring for an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.153/2 of Umilada Village, Santhabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District. However, the respondents for one reason or the other failed to undertake the survey and demarcation as required under law, thereby violating the mandatory procedure as contemplated under the A.P. Land Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. She further submits that the respondents issued an endorsement dated 02.02.2025 stating that the petitioner has not been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property for the past 40 3 years and that the land was assigned to third parties by way of D- form pattas. Such an endorsement, being contrary to the revenue record, amounts to disobedience of the order of this Court. Hence, the respondents have committed contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents contends that the respondents have duly complied with the directions of this Court. It is further stated that, in compliance with the order of this court dated 29.10.2024in W.P.No.20967 of 2024, a notice was issued to the petitioner dated 16.01.2025 by way of registered post with acknowledgment due, directing the petitioner to attend the inspection scheduled on 25.01.2025 and to produce all relevant documents. But, the petitioner is not available in the village. Pursuant to the F-line application submitted by the petitioner, the Mandal Surveyor, along with the Village Surveyor and the Village Revenue Officer, visited the subject land and conducted a field inspection as well as verification of government records. Upon such verification, it was found that the land in Sy. No.153/2 has been classified as Government Banjara land. During the said inquiry, some of the villagers informed that the petitioner has not been in possession or enjoyment of the subject land. Subsequently, the 4 respondents issued an endorsement dated 02.02.2025 stating that upon conducting the survey, it was observed that the land had already been alienated in favour of D-form patta holders and title deeds were issued for the assigned lands during the year 2005, and that the petitioner has not been in possession and has been residing outside the village for the past 40 years. He further submits that, the respondents have duly conducted the survey and demarcation in respect of the subject property as directed by this court by order dated 29.10.2024 in W.P. No. 20967 of 2024 and, therefore, the order of this Court has been complied with in its true and spirit. As such, the present contempt petition is liable to be closed. 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposed the said endorsement dated 02.02.2025 issued by the respondents, contending that the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property since 2022. It is submitted that, in the meantime, after 2002, by altering the revenue records, certain third parties have taken possession of the property. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has not been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property for the past 40 years is contrary to the revenue records. Hence, the action of the respondents amounts to willful disobedience of the orders of 5 this Court and they are liable to be punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 6. After considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents, and on examination of the material available on record, this Court deemed it necessary to ascertain whether the respondents have complied with the directions issued by this Court in their true and spirit. For this purpose, the order dated 29.10.2024 passed in W.P. No. 20967 of 2024 has been perused, which reads as under:–– “Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching merits of the case, this court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the respondent- authorities to consider the F-line application dated 06.10.2022 submitted by the petitioner and to conduct survey and demarcation and pass appropriate orders within a period of three (03) months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order". 7. On perusal of the order of this Court dated 29.10.2024, it is clear and categorical that the respondents herein were specifically 6 directed to conduct a survey and demarcation in respect of the subject property admeasuring for an extent of Ac.5.00 in Sy.No.153/2 of Umilada Village, Santhabommali Mandal, Srikakulam District, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The record shows that a copy of the order was served upon the respondents on 10.11.2024. Therefore, the orders of this Court ought to have been complied with on or before 10.03.2025. However, the counter affidavit and the material papers filed by the respondents shows that the required steps were initiated for conducting the survey and demarcation on 16.01.2025, pursuant to which a notice was issued to the petitioner intimating about the proposed survey in respect of the subject property. It is also evident that the said notice was served on the petitioner by way of registered post acknowledgment due dated 18.01.2025. In terms of the said notice, the survey was conducted on 25.01.2025, which was attended by the well-wishers of the petitioner on his behalf as admitted by both learned counsel. After conducting the survey, an endorsement dated 02.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner, setting out the new facts as extracted above. 8. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents, 7 and upon consideration of the material placed on record, this Court finds that the respondents have issued notice and conducted the survey in respect of the subject property in compliance with the directions of this Court, following the due procedure as contemplated under the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any of the findings or observations made by the respondents in the said endorsement, the same can be challenged by initiating appropriate proceedings against the endorsement issued by the respondents. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, this Court finds that there is neither any violation of the order of this Court nor any willful disobedience on the part of the respondents. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 31.10.2025 kkllkk 8 90 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) Contempt Case No. 934 of 2025 31.10.2025 kkllkk