Contd… APHC010633532023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA I.A No.1 of 2024 and I.A No.1 of 2025 in/and CONTEMPT CASE NO: 6741/2023 Between: B Koteswara Rao, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged 65 years, R/o.25-1-526, Postal Colony, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ...PETITIONER AND Sri Banavath Somla Naik, Tahsildhar, Nellore Ruran Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Kamla Seelam B Counsel for the Contemnor: Mr. T Balaswami The Court made the following Common Order: I.A No.1 of 2024 and I.A No.1 of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K Dilip Naik, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondents. 2. Seeking impleadment of Sri Anand.O., I.A.S., District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, I.A No.1 of 2024 and seeking to discharge him in the present contempt proceedings, I.A No.1 of 2025 have been filed respectively. 3. On a perusal of the order dated 03.08.2023 passed in the writ petition, it is clear that the direction was issued to the Tahsildhar/4th respondent therein. NJS,J I.A No.1 of 2024 & I.A No.1 of 2025 In/and C.C No.6741 of 2023 2 Contd… Despite the said specific direction, as the same was not complied with, the contempt case was filed against the 1st respondent herein. 4. It appears that without observing the said aspect, notice was directed in I.A No.1 of 2024. Be that as it may. 5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel and agreeing with the submissions made by him, the proposed respondent in I.A No.1 of 2024 cannot be stated to have violated the orders referred to above, as no specific direction was issued to the District Collector, accordingly I.A No.1 of 2024 is dismissed. 6. Consequently, I.A No.1 of 2025 is closed. Contempt Case No.6741 of 2023 The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions inter alia contending that though four (04) weeks was stipulated for considering the application made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent herein had not complied with the same and no plausible reasons have been stated muchless an explanation as to why the order has not been complied with. 2. Referring to the reply-affidavit filed on behalf of the incumbent Tahsildhar, he submits that a copy of the proceedings dated 30.11.2023 which is stated to have been issued after considering the application of the petitioner was not served on the petitioner. He submits that only with a view to get over the orders of the Court, the said proceedings have been issued. He also submits that even to avail the remedy of appeal as stated in the said proceedings, thirty days time stipulated therein had already been expired and the petitioner cannot be expected to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer at this length of time, when it was clearly indicated that the remedy of appeal NJS,J I.A No.1 of 2024 & I.A No.1 of 2025 In/and C.C No.6741 of 2023 3 Contd… as mentioned in the said proceedings dated 30.11.2023 was 30 days. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks appropriate orders. 3. On the other hand, Mr. K Dilip Naik, learned counsel representing the incumbent Tahsildhar, states that the proceedings dated 30.11.2023 was dispatched through registered post on 08.12.2023, but the postal receipts were not readily available. He submits that as the order dated 03.08.2023 was complied with, the contempt case may be closed, as there is even otherwise, no willful disobedience of the orders. 4. Considered the submissions made. At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that the concerned officers in the Revenue Department are not serious in dealing with the Court matters. When there is a direction of this Court to dispose of the application made by the petitioner within the stipulated time, there are bound to obey the same and in the event the same could not be complied with within the stipulated time, plausible explanation has to be offered. 5. In the present case, though, it is submitted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the proceedings dated 30.11.2023 have been communicated through the registered post, it is not known as to whether any acknowledgment was received from the petitioner. If such a procedure was adopted, the same should have been reflected in any of the registers maintained by the office of the Tahsildhar. It is doubtful as to whether the records are being maintained properly. Be that as it may. 6. In the present case, the proceedings dated 30.11.2023 mentions that an appeal against the said proceeding lies to Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore. Therefore, this Court instead of examining the matter in detail deems it appropriate to dispose of the contempt case, providing that the petitioner may NJS,J I.A No.1 of 2024 & I.A No.1 of 2025 In/and C.C No.6741 of 2023 4 approach the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore against the proceedings dated 30.11.2023 within a period of thirty (30) days from today. 7. In the event, the petitioner files any appeal against the said proceedings, the same shall be entertained by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore without raising any objection with regard to the delay and shall dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 8. With the above observation, the Contempt Case is closed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date: 20.02.2025 Note: Issue C.C in one week B/o. Ksj