Sri. S. Hanuma Reddy v. Sri A S Dinesh Kumar., I.A.S
CC/2768/2022 · 2025-11-26
Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 41853 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 41853 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010415582022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2768 OF 2022 Between:
1. SRI. S. HANUMA REDDY, S/O S. RAMANA REDDY, AGED. 47 YEARS,OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 34-62-324, 3RD LANE, SUJATHA NAGAR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
...PETITIONER AND
1. SRI A S DINESH KUMAR I A S, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. SRI S SARALA VANDANAM, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE
3. M RAJYALAKSHMI, THE TAHSILDAR, ONGOLE MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. A TAMIM ANSARIYA I A S, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE
5. K LAKSHMI PRASANNA, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE, ONGOLE MANDAL,PRAKASAM DISTRICT
6. P MADHUSUDHA RAO, MRO, ONGOLE URBAN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. RR 4 TO 6 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDERT DATED 18/09/25,VIDE I.A NO-1/25 IN CC NO-2768 OF 2022. ...CONTEMNOR(S):
2
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PARIMI RAMA RAYUDU Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. T BALASWAMI
2. C SANJEEVA RAO
3. J DILEEP KUMAR The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri K. Kedharnath Chowdary, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Parimi Rama Rayudu, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri T. Bala Swamy, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 and Sri T. Sanjeeva Rao, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri J. Dileep Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6. 2. Sri T. Sanjeeva Rao, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the District Collector, Alluri Sitharama Raju District bearing Rc.No.187/MEGL/ASR/ 2025, dated
26.11.2025. Copy of it is supplied to the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and the same is taken on record. 3. The relevant portion of the Written Instructions is usefully extracted hereunder:
“4. It is further submitted that, the District Collector, Prakasam has submitted a report to the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P on 03.11.2025 regarding the pending bills of Rs.1,34,53,803/-(including the petitioner's amount of Rs.9,75,325/-) for the works completed under the YSR Gruhavasathi component of the Navaratnalu - Pedalandariki Illu Programme and requested to take necessary action for the payment of the same. 5.
In this connection, it is submitted that, in the reference 3rd cited above, the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P has forwarded the report of the District
3
Collector, Prakasam to the Special Chief Secretary to Government, Revenue (Lands) Department, AP Secretariat, Amaravathi and requested to release the amount of Rs.1,34,53,803/- (Rupees One Crore Thirty- Four Lakhs Fifty-Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Three only) for the said works completed/executed under the YSR Gruhavasathi component of the Navaratnalu - Pedalandariki Illu Programme, which includes the Petitioner's amount herein. 6. It is further submitted that, I'm the 1st respondent in the above Contempt Case, I kindly request you to appraise the above same to the Hon'ble High Court and kindly request the Hon'ble High Court to grant one adjournment for 8 weeks to comply the orders of the Hon'ble High Court.”
4. The above extract would indicate that the claim of the Petitioner is admitted and he seeks eight (08) weeks time to comply with the Order. 5. Having considered the same, this Court is inclined to grant eight (08) weeks time to the District Collector, Alluri Sitharama Raju District (Respondent No.1) for paying the due amount by way of bank transfer to the Petitioner by completing all the administrative formalities, both inter- departmental and intra-departmental by way of mutual cooperation and coordination. 6. With these observations, this Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. Liberty to the Petitioner to restore this Contempt Case, in case of default. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 27.11.2025 Mnr
4
86
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
Contempt Case No.2768 OF 2022
Dt.27.11.2025 Mnr