APHC010403062024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3703/2024 Between: 1. VUNDAVALLI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O.SRI KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, POTTURU VARI STREET, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA-520 011, N.T.R.DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI DILLI RAO IAS, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, N.T.R.DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R.DISTRICT. 2. SMT SRUJANA, W/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, TAHSILDAR, SINGH NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, N.T.R.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 pleased to punish the above named Respondents under the provisions of contempt of Courts Act for deliberate, intentional and wilful violation of order dt 07-02-2024 in W.P.No.3098 of 2024 of the Honble SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI and pass 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. K M KRISHNA REDDY The Court made the following order: This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for the willful disobedience of the orders dated 07.02.2024 passed in W.P.No.3098 of 2024. 2. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.M. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The 1st respondent-Collector appeared before this Court and submitted that he is in no way concerned with the subject issue and that no directions were given to him. It was further submitted that there is no violation of the orders of this Court on his part and that he has been unnecessarily impleaded as a party contemnor. In fact, a specific direction was issued by this Court in W.P.No.3098 of 2024 to the Tahsildar concerned to consider the petitioner’s F-line application. Instead of filing the contempt proceedings against the Tahsildar, the petitioner has dragged the 3 1st respondent-Collector into the present contempt proceedings. However, it was informed that the petitioner’s application has already been considered and the same has been filed along with the counter affidavit. In view of the same, the 1st respondent requested to exonerate him from the present contempt case. 4. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the Tahsildar failed to adhere to the directions issued by this Court and the same was brought to the notice of the 1st respondent-Collector, but no action has been initiated, the 1st respondent was rightly impleaded as a contemnor in the present contempt case. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both sides. 6. While disposing of the W.P.No.3098 of 2024, this Court directed the Tahsildar concerned to consider the petitioner’s application in accordance with law within a period of thirty (30) working days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. It is not in dispute that as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, the competent authority to 4 consider the petitioner’s application is the Tahsildar. Not adhering to the directions given by this Court, the present contempt case has been filed. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that there was no specific direction issued by this Court to the 1st respondent. In the absence of any specific direction, the petitioner cannot implead the 1st respondent- Collector as a contemnor and it is not the case of the petitioner that 1st respondent is coming in the way of 2nd respondent from implementing the orders of this Court. Therefore, when the 1st respondent has not obstructed the 2nd respondent for implementing the orders of this Court, the 1st respondent cannot be a necessary party to the contempt case. In the said circumstances, impleading the 1st respondent as a contemnor is unsustainable, as such, this Court is inclined to impose costs of Rs.3,000/- on the petitioner for wrongly impleading the 1st respondent as a contemnor in the present contempt case. At this Juncture, the 1st respondent submitted that instead of paying the costs to him, the same may be directed to be paid to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee for utilizing it for an appropriate purpose. Insofar as directing the Tahsildar to consider the F-line application is 5 concerned, the Tahsildar passed order on 26.09.2024 which is enclosed along with reply. Therefore, there is no contempt as alleged by the petitioner. 7. In view of the above, the contempt case is closed. The petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs.3,000/- to the A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and file a memo to that effect before the Registry. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 23.12.2025 ANS 6 220 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3703/2024 Date: 23.12.2025 ANS