IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4481 OF 2024 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 respondent/Contemnor for his willful disobedience of order Dt. 04.04.2024 in WP.No.1871 of 2023 on the file of this Hon’ble Court. Between; H Narayana Reddy, S/o Sanjeeva reddy, Hindu, male, aged about 52 years, Occ-agriculture, Devanuppalapadu Village, Peddapappuru Mandal, Anantapuram District ...Petitioner/Petitioner AND S/o Not known, Panchayat Secretary, Devanuppalapadu Gram Panchayat, Devanuppalapadu Village, Peddapappuru Mandal, Anantapuram District. 1. Ramachandra Reddy 2. M Jayaramireddy, S/o Rami Reddy, Aged about 65 years, R/o Devanuppalapadu Village, Peddapappuru Mandal, Anantapuram District, AP ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KOTHA VEERA NAGA PALLAVI Counsel for the Respondents: C K R ASSOCIATES >■ '^(^nseffdr the Respondents: SRI MATTEGUNTA SUDHIR, STANDING ^ X<^OUNS^ f^or Z.P.Ps, M.P.Ps, GRAM PANCHAYATS The Court made the following: \ 1 APHC010535892024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] m THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4481/2024 Between: H Narayana Reddy ...PETITIONER AND Ramachandra Reddy and others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTHA VEERA NAGA PALLAVl Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1.CKR ASSOCIATES 2.Mattegunta Sudhir, Standing Counsel ForZ.P.Ps, M.P.Ps, Gram Panchayats 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 04.04.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1871 of 2023. 2 2. Heard Ms.Kotha Veera Naga Pallavi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sudhir, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sai Phanindra Kumar, learned counsel representing CKR Associates appearing for respondent No.2. IK 3. Sri M.Sudhir, learned counsel for respondent No.1 while reiterating the contents of the reply affidavit of respondent No.1-Panchayat Secretary, Devanuppalapadu village submitted that the respondent authorities have complied with the order dated 04.04.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition He further submitted that there was some delay in implementing the orders of this Court, however, the said delay was neither willful nor wanton and the same was caused due to the reason that some villagers are against the removal of garbage. There is no violation or disobedience on the part of the respondent No.1, as such, the Contempt Case is liable to be closed against respondent No.1. No.1871 of 2023. 3. Sri N.Sai Phanindra Kumar, learned counsel representing M/s CKR Associates, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the order of this Court has been complied with and prayed to close the Contempt against respondent No.2 also. To the said submissions, Ms.Kotha Veera Naga Pallavi, learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that as per the directions of this Court, encroachments have been removed in the subject property, however the Panchayat Secretary has constructed fencing around the subject property. Hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. 3 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties. This Court vide order dated 04.04.2024 in Writ Petition No. 1871 of 2023 6. has passed the following order: “The concerned Gram Panchayat shall consider and take steps on the encroachments so made by the respondent, if any, in the road margin in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order” It is not in dispute that as per the directions of this Court, the 7. encroachments in the road margin have been removed. However, it was brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No. 1-Panchayat Secretary had constructed fencing around the subject property. Since the respondent authorities have complied the directions of this 8. Court and as the authorities could explain the delay satisfactorily, nothing remains for consideration and the Contempt Case is liable to be closed. If the petitioner has any grievance with regard to construction of fencing around the subject property, he has to agitate for redressal of his grievance before appropriate forum in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law, if he has grievance 4 with regard to construction of fencing around the subject property. 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 I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Sri Ramachandra Reddy, Panchayat Secretary, r Gram Panchayat, Devanuppalapadu Village, Peddapappuru Anantapuram District. 2. M Jayaramireddy, S/o Rami Reddy, Aged about 65 years, R/o Devanuppalapadu Village, Peddapappuru District, AP 3. One CC to M/s. Kotha Veera Naga Pallavi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to C K R Associates Sri. S V S S Siva Ram 5. One CC to Sri. Mattegunta Sudhir, Standing M.P.Ps, Gram Panchayats [OPUC] 6. Three CD Copies Devanuppalapadu I Mandal, Mandal, Anantapuram Advocate [OPUC] Counsel For Z.P.Ps, MKP sree HIGH COURT DATED : 17/04/2025 ORDER CC.No.4481 of 2024 S I) ? AUG ?()75 Sj ^ . Current Section CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE WITHOUT COSTS