APHC010469782024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4097/2024 Between: 1. MADIGA EESWARAIAH, S/O. MADIGA SAVARANNA, AGE 44 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 3-97, SC COLONY, DINNEDEVARAPADU VILLAGE, KURNOOL RURAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. P RANJITH BASHA IAS, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. M SESHI REDDY, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KURNOOL DIVISION AT KURNOOL TOWN. 3. T V RAMESH BABU, THE TAHSILDAR, O/O. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICE KURNOOL RURAL MANDAL AT KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 4. N SUDHAKAR, THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, O/O. MADAL REVENUE OFFICE, KURNOOL RURAL MANDAL AT KURNOOL, KURNOOL 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 respondents 1 to 4 herein for their willful violation and deliberate disobedience to the orders passed by His Lordship Hon'ble Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati in WP 30714/2023, dated 28-11- 2023, under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. J U M V PRASAD Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. J DILEEP KUMAR 2. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4097/2024 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 28.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.30714 of 2023. 2. Heard Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though a specific direction was given to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of personal hearing, the authority has passed orders which are not in true letter spirit of the said order, as such, they are liable to be punished, accordingly, prayed to punish the respondents. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that pursuant to the directions of this Court notice dated 07.11.2024 has been issued to the petitioner providing an opportunity of personal hearing and to submit his objections if any with regard to the findings revealed during examination of revenue records pertaining to the subject land and the petitioner attended to the enquiry scheduled on 11.11.2024, thereafter, a reasoned order has been passed by the respondent authority on 12.11.2024 and the same was communicated to the petitioner, as such, he cannot say that the order is not in the true spirit. If at all the petitioner has any grievance, he has to approach appropriate authority in accordance with law but cannot ventilate his grievance before this Court, as such, contempt case is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the contempt. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 6. This Court, on 28.11.2023, passed the following order: <The respondent authorities are hereby directed to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application dated 19.01.2023 in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner within the time stipulated as per the rules in vogue from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.= 7. A perusal of the proceedings dated 12.11.2024 filed along with the counter would goes to show that the said orders were passed after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The respondents upon the orders of this Court passed orders strictly as per the directions of this Court and in true spirit. Therefore, this Court cannot adjudicate whether the said orders have been passed rightly or wrongly. There is no willful disobedience as alleged by the petitioner and the contempt is liable to be closed. 8. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, if at all the petitioner has any grievance against the said order, he can approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 26th September, 2025 RKS