APHC010317582024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: Between: 1. KOPPARTHI VENKATA RATNAM, W/O PEDDI RAJU, AGE 61 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O GOOTLAPADI VILLAGE, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 1. C NAGA RANI, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT BHIMAVARAM 2. C V PRAVEEN REDDY, JOINT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT BHIMAVARAM. 3. K SRINIVASULU RAJU, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER BHIMAVARAM. 4. L SIVA KUMAR, TAHSILDAR, BHIMVARAM MANDAL, BHIMAVARAM, W.G.DISTRICT. 5. RAMPA RATNAM RAJU, GOOTLAPADU, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT 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 summon the respondents herein and punish them for willful disobedience of the Interim Order passed by this Hon'ble Court order dated 21-03-2024 in W.P.No.7410 of 2024 by his Lordship Hon'ble Justice Ravi IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 392/2025 KOPPARTHI VENKATA RATNAM, W/O PEDDI RAJU, AGE 61 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O GOOTLAPADI VILLAGE, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND C NAGA RANI, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI BHIMAVARAM C V PRAVEEN REDDY, JOINT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT BHIMAVARAM. K SRINIVASULU RAJU, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER L SIVA KUMAR, TAHSILDAR, BHIMVARAM MANDAL, BHIMAVARAM, W.G.DISTRICT. RAMPA RATNAM RAJU, VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, GOOTLAPADU, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI ...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 pleased to summon the respondents herein and punish them for willful disobedience of the Interim Order passed by this Hon'ble Court order dated 2024 in W.P.No.7410 of 2024 by his Lordship Hon'ble Justice Ravi IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI KOPPARTHI VENKATA RATNAM, W/O PEDDI RAJU, AGE 61 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O GOOTLAPADI VILLAGE, BHIMAVARAM ...PETITIONER C NAGA RANI, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI C V PRAVEEN REDDY, JOINT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI K SRINIVASULU RAJU, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER L SIVA KUMAR, TAHSILDAR, BHIMVARAM MANDAL, VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, GOOTLAPADU, BHIMAVARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI ...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 pleased to summon the respondents herein and punish them for willful disobedience of the Interim Order passed by this Hon'ble Court order dated 2024 in W.P.No.7410 of 2024 by his Lordship Hon'ble Justice Ravi 2 Cheemalapati, under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant leave to implead the 5th respondent in this contempt case and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P N MURTHY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. NAGARAJU NAGURU 2. NAGARAJU PULLAGURA 3. S PRANATHI 3 The Court made the following order: This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.7410 of 2024. 2. Heard Sri P.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms.S.Pranati, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms Ramani, learned counsel, representing Sri Nagaraju Naguru, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 & 05. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that when the respondent authorities tried to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and dispossess her from her patta land to an extent of Ac.1.36 cents in R.S.No.283/4 and Ac.0.32 cents in R.S.No.363/121 totalling to an extent of Ac.1.68 cents situated in Losari Gootlapadu, Bhimavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.7410 of 2024. This Court, vide order dated 21.03.2024, granted an order of status quo obtaining as on that day. Despite the said direction, the respondent authorities, on 10.07.2024, forcibly erected a flexi board as if they had taken possession of the subject land, which amounts to clear violation of the orders of status quo passed by this Court. As such, the respondent authorities are liable to be punished for willful disobedience of the orders of this Court. 4 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.5, while reiterating the contents of the reply affidavit filed by respondent No.5-Village Revenue Officer, submitted that pursuant to the orders passed by the Joint Collector and after expiry of statutory period of appeal, the authorities have taken the possession. She further submitted that in order to prevent trespassing into the disputed land, a flexi warning board was erected on 20.03.2024 and that the respondents authorities neither entered nor interfered with the subject land after the orders of this Court. In support of her contention, she placed on record the order of the Joint Collector and the panchanama. She further contended that there was no wanton or deliberate disobedience on the part of respondents authorities, as alleged by the petitioner. She further submitted that there are no proper pleadings and evidence to satisfy this Court that the respondent authorities violated the orders passed by this Court. Hence, prayed to close the Contempt Case. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. This Court, vide order dated 21.03.2024 passed the following order: “There shall be an order of status quo obtaining as on today” 7. The contention of the petitioner is that pursuant to the passing of the order of status quo, the authorities, on 10.07.2024, erected the caution board/flexi and in support of his contention, a photograph to that effect has been placed on record. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent 5 No.5 contended that, the flexi board was erected prior to the passing of the order of status quo i.e., on 20.03.2024. 8. Perusal of the record shows that the order of status quo was granted on 21.03.2024. The photograph filed along with the Writ Petition shows that the flexi board is affixed to a tree. Except the said photograph, there is no other pleading or material placed on record to show when the respondent authorities erected the said board, so as to establish the guilt of the respondents/contemnors to punish them under the Contempt of Courts Act. Hence, in the absence of any element of contempt as alleged by the petitioner, the Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Contempt Case, shall stand closed. [ ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 23.12 .2025 MP 6 226 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO:392 of 2025 Date: 23.12.2025 MP