APHC010763142016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Wednesday, Twenty Fourth day of September, Two Thousand Twenty Five The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Contempt Case No: 185 Between: Nadimipalli Murthy Raju, Krishna Dist and P.S.Srinivasa Sastry and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. S.Srinivas Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: 1. Mahmood Ali 2. Vikram Pooserla 3. Umadevi Manchala IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Wednesday, Twenty Fourth day of September, Two Thousand Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Contempt Case No: 185 of 2016 Nadimipalli Murthy Raju, Krishna Dist ...P thers ...Resondents etitioner: Respondents: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Wednesday, Twenty Fourth day of September, Two Thousand Twenty Five ...Petitioner Resondents 2 BSB, J C.C.No.185 of 2016 The Court made the following order: This contempt case is filed under sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for their willful disobedience to the order dated 15.12.2015 passed in W.P.No.4864 of 2015. 2. The 1st respondent filed counter reporting compliance of the order dated 15.12.2015. The following directions were given vide the order dated 15.12.2015 and the contemnor(s) reported compliance as follows: Directions: Direction No.3: The 1st respondent in W.P.No.4864 of 2015 shall also cause an enquiry to be made into the alleged encroachment by the writ petitioner into the land notified under the above G.O. and take action against the writ petitioner also, if it is found in such an enquiry that he has also made constructions or indulged in activities prohibited under the above G.O. He shall take the assistance of the District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam and the revenue and irrigation department officials in this regard. Compliance: The respondent No.1 is not aware of the writ petition W.P.No.16297 of 2014, as no forest official was made as respondent in that writ petition. The land in R.S.No.39 is situated within +5’ contour of Kolleru Wildlife Santuary declared in G.O.Ms.No.120 EFS&T (For-III), dt.04.10.1999. The illegal constructions made by the respondent No.2 herein within +5’ contour have been demolished / dismantled. 3 BSB, J C.C.No.185 of 2016 The details are given below: Sl. No. Name of the +5’ Contour village and its extent and R.S.Nos. Description of R.C.C.constructions demolished 1) RS No.39 extent of Ac.0.09 cents of Kaikaluru +5’ Contour village. Illegally constructed R.C.C. constructed water engine shed, sump and sluice viz., length 10 mts x width 1 mt; height 0.06 mts were dismantled / demolished fully up to ground level with machinery below +5’ contour in Kolleru Wildlife Sanctuary encroached by Sri Indukuri Venkata Rama Raju (R2 of contempt case No.185 of 2016) against order, dt.15.12.2015 in writ petition No.4864 of 2015 (photos enclosed) Direction No.5: The 3rd respondent in W.P.No.4864 of 2015 shall personally pay costs of Rs.10,000/- to the writ petitioner within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.” Compliance: The directions given in W.P.No.4864 of 2015 and W.P.16297 of 2014 vide common order dated 15.12.2015 are complied with. 3. The averments made regarding compliance of directions towards 1, 2 and 4 have been mentioned in the counter but, they are not stated here as the petition is limited towards directions Nos.3 and 5 only in the petition also. 4. An additional counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.1 re- iterating the contents in counter affidavit and further stating that the order had been complied and a report to that effect had already been filed on 05.11.2015 and further praying to close the contempt case. 5. The 2nd respondent filed counter contending that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition as he does not own any land abutting the bund demolished by the 1st respondent. He further submitted that the petitioner’s 4 BSB, J C.C.No.185 of 2016 wife and daughter-in-law own the land and so they are the aggrieved parties and not the petitioner and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition. 6. As per the counter affidavit, the directions have been duly complied. No reply affidavit has been filed denying the same. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed, without prejudice to the contentions on these aspects in other proceedings, if any. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this contempt case shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated :24.09.2025 GRL 5 BSB, J C.C.No.185 of 2016 223 THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CONTEMPT CASE NO.185 of 2016 Date: 24-09-2025 GRL