APHC010017622022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 94/2022 Between: 1. MAMIDI DHANUMJAYA, 5/0 GOPALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O MARLAGUNTA VILLAGE, DAKKILI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. MAMIDI GIRIJA, W/O PALAMINETRA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O MARLAGUNTA, DAKKILI VILLAGE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. MAMIDI SRINIVASULU, S/O PULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, CULTIVATION, RIO MARLAGUNTA, DAKKILI VILLAGE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. MAMIDI ESWARAMMA, W/O GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O MARLAGUNTA, DAKKILI VILLAGE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. MAMIDI RAJENDRA, S/O GOPALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O MARLAGUNTA, DAKKILI VILLAGE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. BHIMA RAMA KRISHNA SIVA PRASAD, The Tahsildar, Aged about 58 years, Tahsildar Office, Dakkili Mandal, Dakkili, SPSR Nellore District, ...Respondent/Contemnor ...CONTEMNOR NJS,J C.C No.94 of 2022 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. P SUBASH NJS,J C.C No.94 of 2022 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P Subash, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The present contempt case is filed alleging willful violation of the orders dated 01.10.2020 in W.P No.20680 of 2019. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that a learned Judge of this Court, initially granted an order of status quo on 20.12.2019 and the same was extended subsequently by an order dated 01.10.2020. 4. The respondent in violation of the status quo orders, erected the caution board in the property assigned to the petitioners and therefore, the respondents are liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. 5. On the other hand, Mr. P Subash, learned counsel representing the respondent, made submissions with reference to the averments made in the reply-affidavit filed by the respondent. He submits that there are disputes between the groups in the village in respect of the lands situated in Survey No.317 and in fact, as specifically asserted in the counter-affidavit, even prior to passing of the orders in W.P No.20680 of 2019, a caution board was erected to protect the vacant Government land. He submits that as the some of the villagers have brought to the notice of the respondent that the petitioners have removed the caution board, the same was re-erected. He submits that in view of the specific averments made in the reply-affidavit, the allegations of willful violation of the orders passed in W.P No.20680 of 2018 are absolutely untrue and untenable. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the contempt case. 6. This Court has considered the submissions made. There is no dispute about the passing of status quo orders in the writ petition referred to above. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent had specifically stated that caution board NJS,J C.C No.94 of 2022 4 was erected even before the orders in W.P No.20680 of 2019 were passed. Specific assertions were made regarding the circumstances in the reply- affidavit filed as long back as on 25.02.2022 under which the caution board was re-erected. No re-joinder is filed denying the specific assertions made in the reply-affidavit. 7. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to examine the matter further and the Contempt Case is closed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:19.11.2025 Ksj