APHC010409972017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 676/2017 Between: 1. PAMULA NARASAMMA, W/O. LATE RATNAMDAS, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC: CULTIVATION. R/O. KONDAPALLI VILLAGE, KUKKUNURU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI SAGILI SHAN MOHAN I A S, SUB COLLECTOR AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KUKKUNURU VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri P. Karthi Kiran, learned Counsel representing Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned Counsel for the Contempt Petitioner. 2. This Contempt Case is filed for non-compliance of the Order dated 09.03.2017 in W.P.No.2048 of 2017. 3. The Operative portion of the Order passed by this Court in W.P.No.2048 of 2017 dated 09.03.2017 is usefully extracted hereunder: “4. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.5, this Court is of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be served if the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 are permitted to raise their claims before the Respondent authorities with regard to their right over the property. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of, keeping it open to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 to raise their respective claims before the 3rd respondent and it is open for the 3rd respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 4. The above extract would indicate that this Court had granted liberty to the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.5 to approach the Competent Authority, namely Respondent No.3, for determination of the rival claims of the Writ Petitioner as well as Respondent No.5. 5. Respondent No.3, who is the Competent Authority, namely the Sub- Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Kukkunuru Village and Mandal, had filed Counter-Affidavit on 08.06.2017. 6. Para 5 of the Counter-Affidavit is usefully extracted hereunder: “5. In reply to para 5 of petitioner's affidavit, it is submitted that in pursuance of the said orders neither the petitioner nor the respondent No.5 have filed any claims 3 before the 3rd respondent I.E.Land Acquisition Officer. However, the Land Acquisition Officer & Sub-Collector, Kukunoor, issued a common notice directing the persons interested whose cases were disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court, to attend before the Land Acquisition Officer on 24-03-2017 along with the documentary evidence possessed by them to substantiate their respective claims to enable the LAO to enquire into the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance in with law as directed by the Hon'ble Court. In pursuance of the said notice the petitioner herein and the respondent No.5 in W.P.No.2048/2017 have attended before the Land Acquisition Officer on 24-03-2017. During the course of enquiry the writ petitioner did not file any proof to establish her title and ownership on the subject land except a copy of notice issued to her by the Land Acquisition Officer & Sub-Collector, Kukunoor u/s 21 of the LA Act 30 vide Rc.No.88/2016, dated: 05-12-2016. Form-1B annexed to the writ petition is not produced by the petitioner before the competent authority.” 7. The Petitioner herein did not file any Re-joinder controverting the averments in the Counter-Affidavit, which is extracted. The above extract would indicate very clearly that, despite the fact that neither the Writ Petitioner nor Respondent No.5 had initially approached the 3rd Respondent; the 3rd Respondent issued common Notices to attend the enquiry before the Land Acquisition Officer on 24.03.2017 along with documentary evidence to substantiate their respective claims. 8. It also indicates that the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.5 in fact attended before the Land Acquisition Officer on 24.03.2017, and that the Petitioner did not file any proof to establish her title and ownership of the subject land except the copy of the notice issued to her. 9. The above averments would indicate that the 3rd Respondent, in due compliance with the Order dated 09.03.2017, had not only issued Notices but had also heard the Petitioner and Respondent No.5. 10. It is also noted that the Petitioner did not file any proof of title or ownership of the subject land. 4 11. Having considered these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the 3rd Respondent had complied with the Order of the Court. Hence, there is no merit in the present Contempt Case. 12. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 12.11.2025 DSV 5 253 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 676/2017 12.11.2025 DSV 6 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No. CONTEMPT CASE NO: 676/2017 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 12.11.2025 GRKP, J Contempt Case is dismissed. (vide separate order) ___________ GRKP, J DSV 7