I t IN THE HIGH COURT OFQvNDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5367 OF 2023 Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 that in the circumstances stated pleased to punish the respondent for contempt of deliberately disobeying the orders pf.this Court made in W.P.No.14875 of 2018 dated 01-12-2022. - praying in the affidavit file herein, the High Court may be court for willfully and Between: Sriramula Kotaiah, S/o Sriramula Soffil^n, aged 59 AbandamThanda, Kothapalle, Nandyal.Rural, Kurnool District. . \. years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. Ch. Hari Prasad, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. M Seshi Reddy, Ex Revehue©ivisibnal Officer Kurnool, Kurnool District. ' 3. K Sandeep Kumar, Revehue DiVi|ional Officer Kurnool, Kurnool District, ' 5 C 23 01 2025 vide IA No i . i i ( ...RESPONDENTS r- Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI, p KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: C VAMSI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: J DILEEP KUMAR The Court made the following: - , j ' . '5' '■$ .s 'T - •. .i V- % / 'n • ^ > APHC010474602023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY. THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 5367/2023 Between: Sriramula Kotaiah ...PETITIONER AND Ch Hari Prasad and others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1.CVAMSI KRISHNA 2.J DILEEP KUMAR The Court made the following order: This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order dated 01.12.2022 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.14875 of 2018. 2. Heard Sri D.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri J.Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. I 2 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that as per the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No.14875 of 2018 dated 01.12.2022, the petitioner submitted an application to Revenue Divisional Officer on 04.02.2023 requesting to pay compensation to the subject land. The Revenue Divisional Officer issued notice dated 02.03.2023 asking the petitioner to attend the 10.03.2023 and accordingly the petitioner has attended the office and submitted the required documents. He further submitted that this Court, while disposing of the said Writ Petition, clearly held that as the respondents admitted the issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner’s father, they bound to pay compensation to the petitioner as per law, but the authorities neither paid compensation till date nor passed orders on the application of the petitioner, which amounts to willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. Hence, prayed to punish the respondents under Contempt of Courts enquiry on are Act. 4. On the other hand, Sri C.Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that as per the orders of this Court, respondent No.1 has issued notices to the petitioner and the Tahsildar, Orvakal for hearing 10.03.2023 and directed the petitioner to attend the office in person along with relevant documents and also instructed the Tahsildar to appear in person and submit a detailed report with regard to entitlement of compensation to the petitioner. On 10.03.2023. the petitioner appeared and submitted relevant documents, but the Tahsildar has not submitted on any report. He further / \ 3 j* submitted that respondent No.1 once again instructed the Tahsildar to submit a detailed report along with connected records. The Tahsildar submitted a report dated 07.08.2023 to respondent No.1 and on verification, some omissions are identified and returned to Tahsildar and requested to conduct enquiries of both parties and submit a detailed report with regard to subject property to avoid further legal complication. Later respondent No.1 was transferred from Kurnool. There is no disobedience on the part of respondent No.1 in complying the orders of this Court. As such, the Contempt cannot be maintained against respondent No.1 and accordingly prayed to dismiss the Contempt Case against respondent No.1. 5. Sri J.Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 while reiterating the contents of the reply affidavits of respondent Nos.2 and 3 contended that due to the General Elections 2024 and in view of pre-election duties and post-election duties, respondent No.2 could not take further steps in the matter immediately. On 20.06.2024, respondent No.2 has addressed a reminder letter to the Tahsildar, Orvakal and requested to conduct enquiry of both parties with regard to subject property. Thereafter the Tahsildar, Orvakal submitted a comprehensive report opining that the title over the subject land cannot be determined in favour of the petitioner’s father. After receiving the report from the Tahsildar, respondent No.2 has passed a detailed speaking order dated 17.08.2024 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for payment of land compensation. He further submitted that respondent No.3 has assumed charge after passing the order and he has no role in the subject 4 matter. He further submitted that there is some delay occurred in implementing the orders of this Court, but it is neither willful nor intentional and due to administrative grounds only and the respondents have extended their unconditional apology for the said delay. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Contempt Case against respondent Nos.2 and 3. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by respective parties. 7. This Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition No. 14875 of 2018, passed the following order dated 01.12.2022; “(i) The Endorsement in Rc.A.746/2017, dated 01.07.2017 of the 3’’^ respondent is hereby set aside; (ii) The petitioner is given liberty to make a detailed representation by raising all the grounds raised in the writ petition along with the material in support of his claim within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and (iii) The 3^^^ respondent/Revenue Divisional Officer is directed to decide afresh for payment of compensation as per law and pass reasoned and appropriate orders, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioner.” It is the contention of the petitioner that pursuant to the directions of this Court, the authority has not passed orders in true spirit and failed to take into consideration the observations made by this Court in Paragraph No.10 of the 8. / \ 5 order in Writ Petition about the issuance of patta in favour of the petitioner’s father. If that aspect is taken into consideration, the authorities are liable to pay compensation in view of G.O.Ms.NO.259 Revenue (Assn.l) Department dated 21.06.2016. It is the further contention of the petitioner that in the patta granted by the authorities, they have rightly mentioned the name of petitioner father, however in the adangals, his father’s name was not mentioned, which is not the mistake on the part of the petitioner. Hence, the authorities are liable for punishment. 9. The contention raised by the respondents is that respondent No.2 has passed a detailed speaking order, however with certain delay and the reason for delay has been explained in the counter. 10. Perusal of the record would indicate that respondent authorities have admitted the issuance of patta in favour of petitioner’s father. This Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, is not inclined to adjudicate as to whether the revenue authorities have rightly issued patta in favour of the petitioner’s or not, as the contempt jurisdiction is summary in nature and the contempt I I proceeding is not a tool for resolving factual disputes or determining the rights of parties. This Court, under Contempt of Courts Act, shall only adjudicate upon the fact whether there is a willful disobedience of any judgment/order passed by the Court or not. 11. The record would further indicate that the respondent authorities have passed order vide Rc.A.746/2017 dated 17.08.2024 rejecting the 6 application/representation of the petitioner for payment of land compensation, which was not disputed by the petitioner. If at all the petitioner has any grievance against the said order, he can independently test it before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any disobedience of the order as alleged by the petitioner and the delay in implementing the order is only due to administrative grounds. Hence, this Court is not inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. 12. 13. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to question the order of Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool vide Rc.A.746/2017, dated 17.08.2024 before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Contempt Case, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// ■ WAMS'' -■ ■ To 1. CH Hari Prasad, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. M Seshi Reddy, Ex. Revenue Divisional Officer Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3. K Sandeep Kumar, Revenue' Divisional Officer Kurnool Kurnool District RR 2 and 3 are impleaded as per Court Order dated 23 01 2025 vide IA No 2 of 2024 in C C No 5367 of 2023 4. One CC to SRI. D KRISHNA MURTHY Advocate [OPUC] i 5. One CC to SRI. C VAMSI KRISHNA Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI. J DILEEP KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] i 7. THREE CD Copies i Pmg AL high court DATED:09/04/2025 is I i ORDER CC.No.5367 of 2023 § 2(1 AUG 20?! 'V' - dismissing the CONTEMPT CASE / / / / / f / / / / 1 / / :• f f ;; / /