APHC010069852022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3209] THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE No.427 of 2022 Between: 1. Sahukari Umashankar, S/o late. Sahukari Venkata Rao, Aged about 48 years, Resident of Balyaputtuga Colony, Kanchili Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District, and others. … Petitioners AND 1. Vikash Marmat, S/o.Not Known, Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali Revenue Division, Tekkali, Srikakulam District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.B.Ramesh Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.P.Subash The Court made the following ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.S.Satish, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Subash, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the orders dated 08.10.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.18054 of 2020. While disposing of the said writ petition, a learned Judge of this Court directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject matter property, without following due process of law. 2 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia submits that on 20.8.2021 the respondents and their staff demolished a part of the petitioners’ property despite the orders referred to above, the same constitutes contempt and therefore, the instant case has been filed. 4. The learned counsel representing the respondents, on the other hand, made submissions with reference to the averments made in the reply affidavit. While drawing the attention of this Court to the material filed along with the reply affidavit, he submits that pursuant to the orders dated 08.10.2020 referred to above, the respondent No.2 initiated action against the petitioners and others under the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, the APLE Act). He submits that after issuing notices and giving due opportunity to the petitioners, Proceedings under Section 6 of the APLE Act have been passed on 19.8.2021 and therefore, the contention that the orders dated 08.10.2020 have been violated is not tenable. He submits that though the petitioners state that a part of their property was demolished on 20.9.2021, the present Contempt Case is filed on 16.2.2022, which itself belies the allegations made against the respondents. He also submits that the petitioners instead of seeking recourse to law against the Proceedings initiated under the APLE Act, filed the present Contempt Case only to exert pressure on the respondents. He submits that there is no violation of the orders and hence the Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed. 5. This Court has considered the submissions made. As verified from the record, the respondents filed reply affidavit on 11.4.2022 along with the material/notices issued under the provisions of the APLE Act and the action taken by the respondent No.2 in pursuance thereof. For the reasons best known to the petitioners, they did not choose to file any rejoinder and thus specific assertions made in the reply affidavit are deemed to have been admitted by them. 3 6. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to make submissions with reference to granting of pattas to the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to appreciate the same as it is beyond the purview of the present Contempt Case. Be that as it may. In the light of the averments made in the reply affidavit and the material filed along with the same, this Court is of the opinion that there is no violation of the orders dated 08.10.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.18054 of 2020. 7. In view of the same, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J December 04, 2025 vasu