1 APHC010700242017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 757/2017 Between: 1. MAKAMALLA DANIEL, S/O. SUDARSHANAM. AGED 54 YEARS. RIO. H. NO. 3-37. UPPERU VILLAGE. KUKUNURU MANDAL. WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SHAN MOHAN SAGILI, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED 30 YEARS. WORKING AS SUB COLLECTOR AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER. KUKUNURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL. WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SARATH KUMAR D Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. J DILEEP KUMAR The Court made the following: 2 ORAL ORDER: No representation on behalf of the Petitioner. 2. Sri T. Sanjeeva Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the sole Respondent. 3. The present Contempt Case is filed complaining of the noncompliance of the Order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 07.03.2017 in W.P.No.45239 of 2016. When the matter was listed on 20.11.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the Petitioner. Today also there is no representation. 4. However, this Court has perused the relevant material including the Order passed by this Court on 07.03.2017 in W.P.No.45239 of 2016 and the Order passed by the Respondent on 24.03.2017. For appraisal of facts, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the Order passed by the learned Single Judge on 07.03.2017 in W.P.No.45239 of 2016, which reads as under: “4. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel for respondents 4 to 8, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be served if the petitioner as well as respondents 4 to 8 are permitted to raise their claims before the Respondent authorities with regard to their right over the property. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, keeping it open to the petitioner as well as respondents 4 to 8 to raise their respective claims before the 3rd respondent and it is open for the 3rd respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 5. In para 4 of the Affidavit filed in support of the present Contempt Case, it has been categorically stated that the Respondent namely the Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, West Godavari District has passed an 3 Order on 24.03.2017 bearing Roc.No.A/91/2016. This Order dated 24.03.2017 is filed by the Respondent along with the Counter Affidavit (filed on 17.04.2017). It is stated in the said Order that neither the Petitioner nor the Unofficial Respondents in Writ Petition No.45239 of 2016 have submitted their claims in pursuance of the Order of this Court dated 07.03.2017. It is also stated in the said Order that the Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Kukunoor has once again issued a common Notice directing the persons interested (Petitioner/Respondents), whose cases were disposed of by the Hon’ble Court, to attend before the Land Acquisition Officer on 24.03.2017 along with documentary evidence possessed by them to substantiate their respective claims to enable the Respondents to inquire into the matter and pass appropriate Orders in accordance with law. 6. It is further stated in the said Order dated 24.03.2017 that in pursuance of the said common Notice, the Writ Petitioner as well as the Respondent Nos.4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 (in W.P.No.45239 of 2016) have appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer on 24.03.2017 and had participated in the enquiry. After the enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Kukunoor, West Godavari District held that the Respondent Nos.4 to 8 in the Writ Petition have produced the documentary evidence such as 1B Adangal and Pattadar Passbooks to the extents of such land and the survey numbers as indicated in the Order dated 24.03.2017. 7. Having considered the above facts, this Court is of the view that the Order of this Court dated 07.03.2017 in W.P.No.45239 of 2016 has been complied with by the Respondent by passing a Speaking Order on 24.03.2017 and therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no cause of action for filing the present Contempt Petition. No order as to costs. 8. Needless to state that the Petitioner herein shall always has the liberty to challenge the Order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Sub-Collector, Kukunoor, West Godavari District dated 24.03.2017 bearing Roc.No.A/91/2016, subject to all just exceptions. 4 9. With these observations, this Contempt Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 10.12.2025 Vns