Reserved on : 05-11-2025 Pronounced on : 20-11-2025 Uploaded on : 01-12-2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE No.672 of 2025 ORDER:- 1. This Contempt Case is filed complaining the alleged willful disobedience in implementing the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.952 of 2024. 2. Heard Sri Vallepu Jagadeesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. Dileep Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 and Sri Mudunuri Anand Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 and perused the material available on record. 3. W.P.No.952 of 2024 is filed to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent authorities in not passing the award for payment of compensation in respect of the land of the petitioner being an extent of Ac.0.56 cents out of Ac.2.40 cents in Sy.no.610-A5, 6 and 7 respectively situated at Peddapalle revenue Village, Siddavat Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and existing trees, shed, bore wells and NV,J CC No.672 of 2025 2 pipelines and further action of the Respondents in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the above land is as illegal, arbitrary and violations of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of National Highway Authorities Act, 1956 and consequently direct the Respondent authorities not to dispossess the petitioner from the above subject land without passing the award 4. Upon hearing both the parties, this Court disposed of the writ petition, the operative portion reads as follows: “In view of the clear and categorical submissions made by the learned Standing counsel for NHAI, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition can be disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit all the required documents claiming his title over the subject property to Respondent No.4 with within a period two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Upon such submission of required documents by the petitioner, Respondent No.4 shall consider the rights of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders and also disburse the compensation amount, if the petitioner is eligible based on the documents. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks thereafter.” NV,J CC No.672 of 2025 3 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that, though the petitioner immediately approached the respondent authorities and submitted representation dated 05.11.2024 along with order copy to implement the order passed by this Court, the respondents have neither acted upon the representation not implemented the orders of this Court+, which according to the petitioner amounts to willful disobedience and contempt as defined under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 6. Respondent No.1 - Smt. Aditi Singh, Joint Collector & Competent Authority (Land Acquisition), YSR Kadapa District filed counter affidavit. It is stated that, the authority has enquired into the matter and passed orders after receiving the representation dated 05.11.2024 from the petitioner. Respondent No.1 initiated proceedings dated 28.05.2025 for payment of compensation of Rs.16,22,244/-, issued cheque No.23974 dated 12.06.2025 to the Branch Manager, Axis Bank, YSR Kadapa and the same was credited to the account of the petitioner on 13.06.2025, as such, since there is no deliberate or intentional disobedience on the part of Respondent No.1, they requested this Court to close the contempt proceedings initiated against Respondent No.1. NV,J CC No.672 of 2025 4 7. Respondent No.2 did not file counter affidavit. 8. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit stating that the respondent authorities acquired his agricultural land, including the existing trees, pipelines, bores, and structures, to an extent of Ac.0.56 cents out of Ac.2.40 cents in Survey No.610-A5, 6 & 7, situated at Peddapalle Revenue Village, Siddavat Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. The petitioner submits that the total compensation determined under Award No.1/2A/2023-24, dated 31.07.2023, amounts to ₹42,79,094/-. However, the respondents have disbursed only ₹16,22,244/-, leaving a balance of ₹26,56,850/- still payable to the petitioner. It is further submitted that, while filing their counter in the writ petition, the respondents referred to G.O.Ms.No.255, dated 19.06.1997. However, through subsequent proceedings dated 28.05.2025, the respondents have taken a different stand attempting to deny the petitioner’s rightful compensation and evade liability under the Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioner submits that he lawfully purchased the said land in a public auction conducted by a cooperative bank. Therefore, the land is neither government poramboke nor government property but constitutes his private land. Being the legitimate owner, the petitioner is entitled to receive the NV,J CC No.672 of 2025 5 full length compensation as determined in the award, and accordingly, the balance amount of ₹26,56,850/- is payable to him. 9. During hearing, Sri Vallepu Jagadeesh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even though this Court passed an order directing the respondents to consider the rights of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders and also disburse the compensation amount as per the Award, but the respondents did not consider the same. He contended that the respondent authorities acquired Ac.0.56 cents of the petitioner’s agricultural land in Sy.No.610-A5, 6 & 7 of Peddapalle Revenue Village, Siddavat Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, along with trees, pipelines, bores, and structures. Under Award No.1/2A/2023-24 dated 31.07.2023, compensation was fixed at Rs.42,79,094/-, but only Rs.16,22,244/- has been paid, leaving a balance of Rs.26,56,850/-. He further contended that, the respondents relied on G.O.Ms.No.255 dated 19.06.1997, and later issued proceedings dated 28.05.2025 taking a contradictory stand to evade payment. He submits that, the petitioner purchased the land in a cooperative bank public auction; hence, it is private property, not poramboke land. Being the lawful owner, the petitioner is entitled to the balance compensation of ₹26,56,850/-. Hence, learned counsel NV,J CC No.672 of 2025 6 for the petitioner contends that the respondents are liable for punishment as per Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act and requested to punish them in accordance with law. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, no discriminatory treatment was meted out to the petitioner in the matter of awarding compensation. Pursuant to the orders of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.952 of 2024, dated 18.10.2024, the Competent Authority (Land Acquisition) and Joint Collector, YSR District, implemented the said directions and passed orders on 28.05.2025. In the said order, it was held that the vendor of the petitioner viz C. Venugopal Reddy had purchased the subject land through a public auction in the year 2000 at the behest of cooperative central bank limited, which was classified as Government Dry A.W. land. Consequently, the petitioner was found ineligible for payment of compensation as absolute owner for the acquired land and was held entitled only to ex gratia, without solatium, for the structures situated in Sy.No.610/1 of Peddapalle Village, as per Award No.1/2A/2023-24 dated 31.07.2023. Learned counsel further submits that the directions of this Hon’ble Court were implemented in their true spirit, and the petitioner’s rights were duly considered and determined. Accordingly, proportionate ex-gratia amount of NV,J CC No.672 of 2025 7 Rs.16,22,244/- was paid to the petitioner. Hence, it is contended that the orders of this Hon’ble Court have been fully complied with, and the contempt case against the respondents is liable to be closed. 11. Upon hearing the submissions of both counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that this Court, while disposing of W.P.No.952 of 2024, directed the respondents to consider the rights of the petitioner, pass appropriate orders, and disburse compensation if the petitioner was found eligible based on the documents submitted. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a representation enclosing copies of the 3-G Notification, Pattadar Passbook, 1-B register, and the registered sale deed, seeking payment of compensation for land in Sy.Nos.610/A5, 610/A6, and 610/A7 of Peddapalle Village, acquired for the Kadapa–Renigunta National Highway (NH-716). 12. The Joint Collector, on verification, found that land to an extent of Ac.0.80 cents each in Sy.Nos.610/A5 and 610/A7 had been purchased by one Sri C. Venugopal Reddy through a public auction conducted by the Kadapa District Cooperative Central Bank under Award No.1147/2002-2003 dated 11.02.2000, confirmed on 30.06.2006. Subsequently, the petitioner and his wife purchased the said land from NV,J CC No.672 of 2025 8 the said auction purchaser. The Tahsildar, Sidhout, after enquiry, reported that as per the Re-survey and Re-settlement Register of Peddapalle Village, the lands in Sy.Nos.610/A5, 610/A6, and 610/A7 were originally assigned (DKT) lands, which were later purchased in a bank public auction conducted in process of recovery of amount against mortgaged property. 13. The Joint Collector further noted that, as per G.O.Ms.No.255 dated 19.06.1997, purchases of such government-assigned lands through public auction were valid only up to 18.06.1999. Since the said auction purchase was made in 2000, after the cutoff date, the classification/nature of the land could not be treated as private patta land. Accordingly, the lands were treated as Government Dry A.W. lands, making the petitioner ineligible for land compensation under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. 14. It was further observed that as per NHAI Policy Circular No.7.1.51 dated 10.04.2017, persons in long possession of government land without ownership documents may be treated as bona fide users and paid ex gratia for existing structures on the recommendations of the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition NV,J CC No.672 of 2025 9 (CALA). Accordingly, the petitioner was held entitled only to ex gratia, without solatium, for the structures in Sy.No.610/1 of Peddapalle Village, and an amount of ₹16,22,244/- was sanctioned under Award No.1/2A/2023-24 dated 31.07.2023. 15. While the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the orders of this Court were implemented in their true spirit, a perusal of the record indicates that the respondents sought necessary clarifications, conducted an enquiry, considered the petitioner’s representation and documents, and thereafter passed a reasoned order determining that the petitioner’s vendor had purchased assigned land in auction. The authorities then sanctioned ex gratia of ₹16,22,244/-, as per the applicable guidelines. 16. It is well settled that to constitute civil contempt, there must be a willful, deliberate, and intentional disobedience of a court’s order. An administrative decision taken in compliance with a court’s direction cannot amount to contempt. 17. In the present case, this Court is satisfied that the respondents have complied with the directions issued in W.P.No.952 of 2024 by considering the claim of the petitioner and passing a reasoned order. NV,J CC No.672 of 2025 10 If the petitioner is aggrieved by the merits of the said decision, it is open for him to avail appropriate remedies before the competent forum. The same cannot, however, be adjudicated in contempt proceedings. Therefore observations made if any, are limited for the purpose of deciding the present contempt case only. 18. In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the fact that the respondents have complied with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.952 of 2024 by passing a reasoned order and disbursing the ex gratia amount as determined, this Court finds no willful or deliberate disobedience of its order. However, the petitioner is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against arising fresh cause of action, if advised. 19. In the result, contempt case is closed. No costs. 20. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this contempt case shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 20-11-2025 SP NV,J CC No.672 of 2025 11 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE No.672 of 2025 Date: 20-11-2025 SP