APHC010135502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 879 OF 2025 Between: 1. S SUDHAKAR, S/O. LATE S. SUBRAHMANYAM REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YRS, OCC PRIVATE JOB, RESIDING AT PEDDAMMAGARI PALLE, K. ODDEPALLI POST, PAKALA MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT . ...PETITIONER AND 1. SANTOSH SAI, S/o Not known. Aged about 45 years, Occ Tahsildar, O/o. The Mandal Revenue Office, Pakala, Pakala Mandal, Tirupati District. Erstwhile Chittoor District ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAJENDRA BUSSA Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. SUSHMA YAGANTI 2 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri G. Krishna Prasad Royal, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Bussa Rajendra, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Bhagath Singh, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Sushma Yaganti, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent. 2. The present Contempt Case is filed complaining of violation of the Order passed by this Court dated 09.12.2024 in W.P.No.28838 of 2024. The content of this Order dated 09.12.2024 in W.P.No.28838 of 2024 would indicate that the earlier Notice issued under section 7 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905 was set aside for the reason that wrong provision of the statute has been invoked by giving liberty to Respondents to initiate fresh proceedings under the correct statute. 3. After this Order came to be passed, the Official Respondents herein have once again issued notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. It is stated in the Para-5 of the Counter- Affidavit filed by the Tahsildar that the Petitioner herein has refused to receive the Notice and therefore, the Officers from the Tahsildar Office were constrained to paste the copies of the notice on the Bore well dug by the Petitioner unauthorisedly (Photograph in page 14 of this Contempt Case). Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner herein submits that the Respondents have been acting highhandedly by removing the electricity connection for the bore well. The Counter-Affidavit would indicate that the Respondents have initiated ‘Eviction Proceedings’ under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 vide proceeding dated 22.07.2025. The Photograph also would indicate that the Petitioner herein has refused to accept Notice that compelled the Respondents to paste the said notice on the tube to the bore well, which is visible in the Photograph (at page No.14 of the Photograph of the Counter- Affidavit). 3 4. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Bore well belonging to the Petitioner was seized on 09.12.2024 at 2.30 PM which is a violation of the Order of this Court. Admittedly, this Court has passed the Order on the same dated that is on 09.12.2024 and therefore, seizure of the Bore well at 2.30 PM on 09.12.2024 would not be a deliberate act of Contempt inasmuch as the fact that the Respondents would not have received any information about the setting aside of the earlier show cause notice under Section 7 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Therefore, even if there was any interference at 2.30 PM on 09.12.2024, this Court is of the opinion that such an act would not amount to willful violation of this Court’s Order. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no act of Contempt. 5. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. 6. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 29.10.2025 MNR 4 71 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO.879 OF 2025 Dt: 30.10.2025 MNR 5