APHC010012722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 87/2025 Between: 1. KONDEBOYINA YOGAMMA @ CHINNA YOGAMMA, W/O. LATE PULLAIAH, AGED 67 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION R/O. KOTAPALEM, BUCHANNAPALEM, PODILI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. KONDEBOYINA YOGAIAH @ CHINNA YOGAIAH,, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED 66 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, BUCHANNAPALEM, PODILI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 1. SRI CHINTALAPUDI ASHOK KUMAR REDDY, S/O. NOT KNOWN, PREVIOUSLY WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, PODILI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. (NOW HE IS WORKING AS TAHSILDAR IN KANIGIRI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT). 2. SRI MADDULA VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. NOT KNOWN PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, PODILI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 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 topleased to punish the respondents Under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for their willful disobedience of Order Dt. 08.01.2024 passed in W.P No. 337 of 2024 on the IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 87/2025 KONDEBOYINA YOGAMMA @ CHINNA YOGAMMA, W/O. LATE PULLAIAH, AGED 67 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION R/O. KOTAPALEM, BUCHANNAPALEM, PODILI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. KONDEBOYINA YOGAIAH @ CHINNA YOGAIAH,, S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED 66 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. KOTAPALEM, BUCHANNAPALEM, PODILI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND SRI CHINTALAPUDI ASHOK KUMAR REDDY, S/O. NOT KNOWN, PREVIOUSLY WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, PODILI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. (NOW HE IS WORKING AS TAHSILDAR IN MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT). SRI MADDULA VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. NOT KNOWN PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, PODILI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...CONTEMNOR(S): Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying rcumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased topleased to punish the respondents Under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for their willful disobedience of Order Dt. 08.01.2024 passed in W.P No. 337 of 2024 on the file of this Hon'ble Court and pass Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI KONDEBOYINA YOGAMMA @ CHINNA YOGAMMA, W/O. LATE PULLAIAH, AGED 67 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION R/O. KOTAPALEM, BUCHANNAPALEM, PODILI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. KONDEBOYINA YOGAIAH @ CHINNA YOGAIAH,, S/O. RAMAIAH, R/O. KOTAPALEM, BUCHANNAPALEM, PODILI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) SRI CHINTALAPUDI ASHOK KUMAR REDDY, S/O. NOT KNOWN, PREVIOUSLY WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, PODILI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. (NOW HE IS WORKING AS TAHSILDAR IN SRI MADDULA VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY, S/O. NOT KNOWN PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, PODILI MANDAL, ...CONTEMNOR(S): Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying rcumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased topleased to punish the respondents Under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for their willful disobedience of Order Dt. 08.01.2024 file of this Hon'ble Court and pass Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to dispense with my personal appearance on 16.10.2025 ordered in C.C.No.87 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SUBBA RAO JANDHYAM Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. K M KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER Alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of order dated 08.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.337 of 2024, this Contempt Case has been filed. 2. Heard Sri Subba Rao Jandhyam, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri DilipNaik, learned counsel, representing Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent. 3. Sri Subba Rao Jandhyam, learned counsel, would contend that despite the order passed by this Court directing the respondent-Tahsildar to conduct survey and pass a reasoned order, the same was not done and therefore there is wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. 4. On the other Sri DilipNaik, learned counsel, on counter submitted that in obedience of the orders passed by this Court, notices were issued by Surveyor to the petitioners and adjacent ryots and in their presence survey was conducted by the Mandal surveyor and submitted a report stating that there is difference in extent of land noted in pattadar passbook and in actual enjoyment of the petitioner and further the land was not sub-divided earlier and moreover the adjacent rhyots did not agree to fix boundaries stating that they have been in enjoyment since a long time. He would further contend that in view of the circumstances obtaining on ground, the respondent-Tahsildar issued an endorsement to the petitioners narrating the above facts. Therefore, there is neither wilful nor deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by this Court as alleged by the petitioner. The contempt case is meritless and the same deserves dismissal. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. The material filed along with the counter of respondent shows that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, notices were issued to petitioners and adjacent ryots as per law and survey was conducted. They would further disclose that the petitioners are not in possession of the entire extent of land as per Pattadar passbooks and the adjacent ryots did not agree for fixation of boundaries stating that they have been in possession of the land since a long time. Further, the land has not been subdivided. Therefore, narrating all the facts and circumstances that are obtaining on ground the respondent- Tahsildar issued an endorsement as to why boundaries could not be fixed. 7. In view of the above, there is due compliance of the orders passed by this Court and there is neither wilful nor deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved by the endorsement, they can approach appropriate Forum for redressal of grievance. There is no merit in this Contempt Case and the same is liable to be closed. 8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR