1 APHC010072502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 536/2025 Between: 1. B VENKATA RAMI REDDY, S/O. CHENRAYUDU AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. D.NO.4/42, THALAGACHIPALLI VILLAGE, GARLADINNE MANDAL ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. B.CHITAMBAR REDDY,, S/O. CHENRAYUDU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O. D.NO.4-1, THALAGACHIPALLI VILLAGE, GARLADINNE MANDAL ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. B.CHENNA REDDY,, S/O. CHENRAYUDU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O. D.NO.4-1, THALAGACHIPALLI VILLAGE, GARLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. B ERREAMMA, TAHSILDAR, GORLADINNE MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. M RAMANJANEYA REDDY, S/O. LATE M.KADIRI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE THIMMAMPETA VILLAGE, GARLADINNE MANDAL, 2 ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ...CONTEMNOR(S): 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 to punish the respondents herein under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for their willful, deliberate and intentional violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court, dated 28.10.2024 made in W.P.No.24561 of 2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V R REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. T JANARDHAN REDDY 2. A JAYANTHI 3 Reserved on : 26.11.2025 Pronounced on : 31.12.2025 Uploaded on : 02.01.2026 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE No.536 of 2025 ORDER:- 1. This Contempt Case has been filed complaining willful disobedience in implementing the Order in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.24561 of 2024 dated 28.10.2024 passed by this Court. 2. The petitioners filed W.P.No.24561 of 2024 claiming the following relief: “To issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in interfering with the rights of the petitioners over the land in an extent of Ac.9-00 cents in Sy.No.207 of Garladinne Village fields, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapuram District by destroying the banana plantation fully grown and Sweet lime trees raised by them in the same at the instance of the respondent No.5 that too without adhering to due process of law as arbitrary, illegal colorable exercise of power and contrary to the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and the Constitutional rights guaranteed to them under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.4 not to 4 interfere with the rights of the petitioners over the land in an extent of Ac.9-00 cents in Sy.No.207 of Garladinne Village fields, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapuram District.” 3. After hearing both the counsel at the admission stage this Court was pleased to pass an interim direction in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.24561 of 2024, which reads as follows: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, there shall be an interim direction, as prayed for, for a period of four (4) weeks.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, without implementing the orders of this Hon’ble Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.24561 of 2024 dated 28.10.2024 in true spirit, the respondents deliberately flouted the orders of this Court. The Respondent Nos.4 & 5 by taking advantage of the expiry of the interim orders dated 28.10.2024, entered into the land of the petitioners on 08.12.2024 along with JCB in highhanded manner and started erupting the banana plantation along with drip pipes and laid rastha, without issuing any notice and without adhering to the due procedure. When the petitioners tried to restrain Respondent Nos.4 & 5, they shown deaf ears and proceeded 5 further. He submits that, even assuming in the absence of any express order from any Court of law, it is the statutory duty/obligation cast upon Respondent No.4 to adhere to the procedure known to law. Whereas, Respondent No.4 who is hand in glove with the Respondent No.5, taking advantage of the expiry of the interim orders dated 28.10.2024 removed the banana plantation at the subject land without putting the petitioners on notice. He argued that, the interim order passed even for a limited period would not automatically vacate, if for one or the other reason the matter could not been listed or be taken up by the Court and the same is not at fault of the petitioner once the matter posted for particular date or week. Thus the action of the respondents amounts to violation of the orders passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.24561 of 2024 dated 28.10.2024. He further contends that, failure on the part of the respondent in implementing the orders of this Court in true spirit would amount to disobedience of the orders of this Hon’ble Court, and, therefore, they are liable for punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 6 5. Respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit stating that, the orders of this Court are implemented and abided by adhering to the due procedure of law. It is submitted that, the writ petitioners are the owners of landed property in Sy.No.207. The subject matter in dispute is regarding public rastha or public road and plan marked rastha/road is existing as per village map of Talagachipalli village of Garladinne Mandal passing through the fields of Sy.Nos.258, 207, 206 and 205 which is to the Northern side of the writ petitioners’ land in Sy.No.207. The said rastha/road is being used by all the villagers without any obstruction till today. But, the petitioners with malafide intention to grab the land in Sy.No.205 which is vanka poramboke and adjacent to the petitioners field in Sy.No.207. Knowing fully he is obstructing the plan marked rastha to make utilizing by clubbing the entire land and restraining the villagers. The petitioners, after creating the scenario have projected the pictures taken by themselves and allegedly making false allegations against Respondent No.4 but it is evident that the petitioners did not choose to file any complaint against anyone before any authorities regarding alleged illegal disruption of banana trees and straight away produced only the photos to mislead the Court. 7 On 17.04.2025, the field staff of the 4th respondent office have visited the plan marked rastha and reported that there were some big stones upon the existing rastha and some banana trees were also planted in the existing plan marked rastha. It is submitted that there is no dispute in respect of the land and the possession over the land in Sy.No.207 of Talagachipalli Village of Garladinne mandal vested with the petitioners. Without reference any proceedings or documents, the petitioners are claiming that the rastha which is said to have been formed on Southern side of Sy.No.207 way back 75 to 80 years by the grandfather of the petitioners is only for their own convenience which connects their adjacent fields directly to National Highway No.44. The fact remains that the villagers have never used the said alleged rastha as public rastha/road as it was seen by public / villagers as private rastha of the petitioners only. More over the respondents neither interfered nor dispossessed the petitioners from their land in Sy.No.207. Hence the respondents neither deviated nor flouted the orders of this Court as explained above and prayed to close the contempt case. 8 6. The petitioners filed reply to the counter affidavit stating that the respondents have restored the rastha/road at the instance of the respondent No.5. He further referred to para Nos. 3 and 5 of the reply affidavit, wherein they are claiming that the villagers are using the said plan marked rasta till today. If that is the case, there is no necessity to restore the same as admitted in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.4 which was filed in writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that there is no evidence that the respondents issued notices to the petitioners as contemplated under law. But the respondents restored the rasta basing on the representation submitted by respondent No.5. The land which was earmarked for rasta, that the revenue authorities formed road by removing banana plantations and closing open well, contrary to the orders of this Court dated 28.10.2024. 7. During hearing, Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are taking advantage of the expiry of the interim orders dated 28.10.2024 and highhandedly entered into the subject land on 08.12.2024 and started erupting the banana plantations and 9 closed the well which is in the subject land and laid rasta, without issuing any notice and without following due procedure, pending writ petition. He further submits that there is a village rastha for their villagers to reach the main road from their village and the said village rastha was about 2 kms distance to reach the main road and as the same is not convenient to their villagers, the village elders conducted a meeting and requested petitioners’ grandfather to provide rastha through the Southern side of petitioners’ land in Sy.No.207, thus the distance is within 100 mts from the village, which is more feasible to the villagers to reach the main road easily. In turn they assured that in exchange for the same, the petitioners’ grandfather will be entitled to use the old village rastha Northern side for cultivation. Thereafter, new village road has been laid through the subject land and the same is being used by the villagers to reach the main road for the last 75 to 80 years. Further, it cannot be said that an interim order passed for a limited period would automatically vacate if for the one or the other reason the matter could not be taken up by the court. In similar circumstances, in various cases, it was held that time bound stay orders do not cease to be effective by the efflux of time. 10 8. On the other hand, Sri A. Jayanthi, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 and Sri J. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 submits that, there is no interference in the subject lands of the petitioners. The said rasta is being used by all the villagers without any obstruction till today. But with a malafide intention to grab the land in Sy.No.205, which is vanka poramboke adjoining to the petitioners’ field in Sy.No.207, the petitioners are obstructing the plan marked rastha. It is contended that, there is no dispute with the title of the land and the possession over the land in Sy.No.207 of Talagachipalli village of Garladinne mandal belongs to the petitioners without any interference. But the rasta which was said to have been formed on the southern side of the Sy.No.207 about 75 to 80 years back by the petitioners’ grandather is only for their convenience which connects to only adjacent fields of them nearer to National Highway-44. The villagers have never used the said rasta as it was in the petitioners own fields. There is no dispute in respect of the title of the property and requested to close the contempt case against the respondents. 11 9. Heard the submissions of the respective counsel and perused the material placed on record. 10. It is an admitted fact that there is an existing public rastha / road runs through fields in Sy.Nos.205, 206 and 207 situated at Talagachipalli Village of Garladinne Mandal for conveyance of the village people to reach the main road i.e., National Highway No.44. The said fact was confirmed without there being any ambiguity through village maps as well as revenue record and also admitted by the petitioner herein. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that since the notified public rastha as per the village map and revenue record, the entire span of the said public rastha is a length of 2 kilometers from the village to National Highway-44. In contrast, if the villagers use the route passing through the Southern side of petitioners’ land, the distance from the village to National Highway-44 (the main road) is only about 100 meters. In view of the said fact, the village elders and public requested the grandfather of the petitioners to provide rastha through the petitioners’ land and petitioners can set off the same extent of land by occupying the notified public rastha situated in northern side of the petitioners’ land. As such, the grandfather of the petitioners obeyed the request of the 12 village elders and allowed the villagers through the petitioners’ land and in compensation they were in occupation and enjoyment of the notified public rastha to the extent of their land in Sy.No.207 since 70 to 80 years. The said contentions of the petitioners was not supported by any material evidence, even there is neither representation by the villagers nor request by the petitioners to the authorities concerned for appropriate proceedings for such exchange and unable to prove by filing any piece of evidence either material filed along with writ petition or along with present contempt case. 11. It is settled law that conveyance / alienation or exchange of public property/public road in lieu of compensation as claimed by the petitioners cannot be done by the villagers or elders but it is to be done by the competent authority i.e., the State Authority after following due procedure as contemplated. Until and unless the action was initiated by the State Authorities, the petitioners cannot claim that they were conferred right of subrogation in lieu of compensation. It is not out of place to mention here that the said contention of the petitioners expressly and clearly denied by the respondents and the alleged rastha of the petitioners has been utilizing by themselves only but not by the villagers as 13 claimed and the villagers have been utilizing the notified public rastha only to reach the main road / National Highway-44. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that due to the expiry of the interim order of this Court dated 28.10.2024, the respondents highhandedly removed the banana trees and closed the open Well and restored the public road as admitted in their counter-affidavit filed in the writ petition but stated in the counter-affidavit filed in contempt case that the respondents are not interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of extent of public rastha in Sy.No.207 and not disrupting the banana plantation and the contradictory statements of Respondent No.4 to be considered as an act of deviation to the orders for the reason that the Respondent No.4 stating contra statements as petitioners occupied the notified rastha in Sy.No.207 and on the other hand the villagers are utilizing the subject rastha till today. Therefore, the respondents are certainly making contradictory statements before the Court intentionally to avoid contempt proceedings. 12. It is settled proposition of law that even in the absence of any order from the Court restraining the respondents or directing the respondents not to interfere or dispossess the petitioners, but 14 statute or principles of natural justice mandates the respondents to follow due process if the petitioners are illegally encroached or in occupation of the public property as per the provisions of either A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 or any other law permitting the respondents to initiate action against the petitioners. In the instant case it is clear and categorically observed that certainly the respondents neither issued any notice nor followed due process which is mandatory on the part of the respondents being public authorities, which is basic tenet of law of administration and Rule of Law. It appears that the entire action initiated by the respondents might be to safeguard the public property and to facilitate the public for their commutation through public road but it cannot be at the cost of mandated procedure under the law. However, the respondents in their counter-affidavit clearly and categorically stated that they are not interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the land in Sy.No.207 while admitting that they are the pattadars and possessors of the land in Sy.No.207. The same can be taken into record. It is also observed that the petitioners cannot be vested with any rights what-so-ever in respect of the land notified/classified as public road through Sy.No.207 on the guise 15 of compensatory measure having allowed them by the villagers. Therefore, the illegal occupation and encroachments cannot be created any vested right at the cost of public. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled relief of declaration of the public road in Sy.No.207 as their property. Therefore, the action of the respondents and contradictory statements certainly amounts to disregarding and deviating the mandated procedure and due process as contemplated under law. In the absence of extension of order of this Court cannot hold that the respondents have committed offence by flouting the orders of this Court. However, the respondents certainly deviated the mandated due procedure as contemplated under law and liable for punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 13. In view o forgoing discussions, the Respondent No.4 is liable to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as costs for violation of law to be payable in favour of the Member Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after such payment the cost memo shall be filed with the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati within one (01) week 16 thereafter, failing which the respondent No.4 shall undergo to civil prison for a period of one month thereafter. 14. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is disposed of. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this contempt case shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date: 31.12.2025 krk 17 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO.536 of 2025 Date:31.12.2025 W krk