IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl,. THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 200 OF 2025 Contempt Case filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971, to punish the Contemners under Sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, for deliberately violating the orders of this Hon'ble Court passed in lA.No. 1 of 2024 in WP.No. 4707 of 2024 dated 22.02.2024. Between: 1. Motumarri Raghava Rao, S/o. Late Motumarri Venkata Subba Rao, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.46-61, Main Road, Peddaganjam Village, Chinna Ganjam Mandal, Prakasam District. 2. Motumarri Veera Raghava Rao, S/o. Late Motumarri Raghava Rao, Aged about 49 years Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Pedda Ganjam Village, China Ganjam Mandal, Prakasam District. 3. Motumarri Rajesh Babu, S/o. Late Rosaiah, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. D.No.4-211-1, Avula Doddi Kotha Gollapalem, China Ganjam Mandal, Prakasam District. 4. Motumarri Subramanyam, S/o. Late Rosaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. D.No.58-21, Avula Doddi Kotha Gollapalem, China Ganjam Mandal, Prakasam District. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. Sri Prakhar Jain IAS, S/o. not known to Petitioner Working Aged Major, Occ; as Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Bapatia District, Bapatia (erstwhile Prakasam District). 2-“Sri.T. Chandra Shekar Naidu, S/o. i -n- not known to Petitioner, Aged Major, Chirala Division, Chirala, 'r . A Occ: Working as Revenue Divisional Officer, Bapatia District. 3. Sri.G V Gunta Prabhakar Rao, S/o. Occ: Working Bapatia District. 4. P. Parvathi, D/o. not known to the Petitioner, Aged Major, Occ: Tahsildar, Chinaganjam Mandal, Chinaganjam, Bapatia District (Presently Working as Tahsildar, Vetapalem Mandal Bapatia District) 5. M/s. Bommisetty Agro Farms Private Limited Sandhya Rani, W/o. Late Ramanadha Rao, D.No.35-3-69(371), Bhagyanagar, 4th Line, Ongole Town Prakasam District. not known to Petitioner, Aged Major, as Tahsildar, Chinnaganjam Mandal, Chinnaganjam, Rep. by Smt. Bommisetty Aged about 57 years, R/o. and Mandal, 6. Sri. Bommisetty Santhosh Ganesh Deepak, S/o. Late Ramanadha Rao Aged about 37 years, R/o. D.No.35-3-69(371), Bhagyanagar, Ongole Town and Mandal, Prakasam District 4th Line, 7. Sri. Bommisetty Santhosh Mallikharjuna Rao, S/o. Late Ramanadha Rao Aged about 32 years R/o. D.No.35-3-69(371), Bhagyanagar Ongole Town and Mandal, Prakasam District. 4th Line, ...CONTEMNORS Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s PINNINTI KEERTI Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI KM KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2, & 4 to 7: None Appeared The Court made the following: 1 ^0* APHC010026222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 200/2025 Between: Motumarri Raghava Rao and others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Sri Prakhar Jain I.A.S and others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.PINNINTI KEERTI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1.KM KRISHNA REDDY ...CONTEMNOR(S) 2. 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 22.02.2024 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Writ Petition No.4707 of 2024. 2 Heard Sri N.Krishna Sai, learned counsel representing Ms.P.Keerti 2. learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that questioning the mutation proceedings issued by the 4'*^ respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.DT/167/2022 dated 20.01.2024 with regard to subject property in the name of unofficial respondents, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.4707 of 2024 and this Court vide order dated 22.02.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the order passed by 4^'' respondent -Tahsildar dated 20.01.2024, pending further orders and the petitioners are also directed not to create any third party interest. He further submitted that the said orders were repeatedly brought to the notice of the contemners through oral and written representations dated 02.04.2024, 08.04.2024 and 16.05.2024 by the petitioners and requested them that the subject lands be placed in the dispute register to prevent unauthorized transactions, as the unofficial respondents were attempting to alienate the subject lands. In spite of the said representations, the official respondents have not put the subject property in dispute register. The respondents have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court dated 22.02.2024. Hence, prayed to punish the respondent under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 3 On the other hand, Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents while reiterating the contents of the reply affidavit of the Tahsildar contended that the unofficial respondents have executed sale deeds in favour of third party on 07.03.2024 in Sub-Registrar Office, Narasaraopet, whereas the petitioners have filed representation before the Tahsildar, Chinnaganjam 02.04.2024 to place the subject lands in dispute register i.e. completion of registration at Sub-Registrar Office, Narasaraopet. He further submitted that in obedience to the order of this Court, the Tahsildar has not taken any further action in respect of the order passed by the Tahsildar, Chinnaganjam in Rc.DT/167/2022, dated 20.01.2024. He further submitted that as the subject lands are in dispute, proposals were submitted to the Joint Collector, Bapatla to place the subject lands in dispute register to prevent the 3'^'^ party registrations and also to prevent further mutations and accordingly the Joint Collector, Bapatla has passed orders in Eoffice No.16828/2025-D3 dated 12.02.2025 directing the Tahsildar, Chinnaganjam to place the subject lands in dispute register and accordingly the subject lands are in dispute register. 4, after on Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned 5. counsel for the parties. Perusal of the record would show that the petitioners filed representations dated 02.04.2024 and 08.04.2024 to the Tahsildar to place the subject lands under dispute register. By that time, mutation has been 6. i<3r- taken place in favour of the unofficial respondents. The petitioners themselves' stated in the affidavit that they made representations dated 02.04.2024, I 08.04.2024 and 16.05.2024 to the official respondents to put the subject land in dispute register, as the unofficial respondents were attempted to alienate the subject lands in favour of third parties. In view of the above and taking the submissions of both the learned 7. counsel into consideration, since the unofficial respondents have executed sale deed in favour of third party on 07.03.2024 and the petitioners filed representation before the Tahsildar to place the subject lands in dispute register on 02.04.2024 which is after completion of registration at Sub- Registrar Office, Narasaraopet, this Court cannot find fault with the respondents. Hence, this Court is not inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. 8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to question the consequential mutation before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 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 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Sri Prakhar Jain IAS, S/o. not known to Petitioner, Aged Major, Occ: Working as Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Bapatia District, Bapatia (erstwhile Prakasam District). 2. Sri.T. Chandra Shekar Naidu, S/o. not known to Petitioner, Aged Major, Occ: Working as Revenue Divisional Officer, Chirala Division, Chirala, Bapatia District. 3. Sri.G V Gunta Prabhakar Rao, S/o. Occ; Working Bapatia District. not known to Petitioner, Aged Major, as Tahsildar, Chinnaganjam Mandal, Chinnaganjam, 4. P. Parvathi, D/o. not known to the Petitioner Chinaganjam Mlandal, Chinaganjam, Bapatia District Aged Major, Occ; Tahsildar, (Presently Working as Tahsildar, Vetapalem Mandal Bapatia District) 5. M/s. Bommisetty Agro Farms Private Limited, Rep. by Smt. Bommisetty Sandhya Rani, W/o. Late Ramanadha Rao Aged about 57 years, R/o. and Mandal, 6. Sri. Bommisetty Santhosh Ganesh Deepak, S/o. Late Ramanadha Rao Aged about 37 years, R/o. D.No.35-3-69(371) Ongole Town and Mandal, Prakasam District. 7. Sri. Bommisetty Santhosh Mallikharjuna Rao, S/o. Late Ramanadha Rao, Aged about 32 years R/o. D.No.35-3-69(371), Bhagyanaga Ongole Town and Mandal, Prakasam District. 8. One CC to M/s PINNINTI KEERTI, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to SRI KM KRISHNA REDDY 10. Three CD Copies D.No.35-3-69(371), Bhagyanagar, 4th Line, Ongole Town Prakasam District. Bhagyanagar, 4th Line r, 4th Line, Advocate [OPUC] PRK HIGH COURT DATED: 17/04/2025 ORDER CC.No.200 of 2025 0 5 AUG 2025 p ntSectiojiX^ o Co a DISMISSING THIS CONTEMPT CASE