APHC010530342024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4429/2024 Between: 1. VENKATARAMANA GONTHINA, S/O. LATE CHINNIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, R/O. D.NO.27-4-24, OLD KARNAVANIPALEM, NADUPUR POST, GAJUWAKA MANDAL,VISAKHAPATNAM-530026. ...PETITIONER AND 1. M N HAREN DHIRA PRASAD, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED MAJOR, OCC. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MAHARANI PETA, VISAKHAPATNAM.VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-530031. 2. A K SAXENA, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED MAJOR OCC CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR (CMD) OF RASHTRIYA SPAT NIGAM LIMITED, THE VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT LTD (A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING) VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-530031. ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G VENKATA SUBBA RAJU 2 Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. G RAJU 2. A S C BOSE 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vuyyuru Rama Manohar, learned counsel representing Sri G. Raju, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, and Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 2. The contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 7160 of 2021, dated 27.03.2024. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “5. In the light of the statement made by the 3rd respondent asserting that the land in Sy.Nos.215/5B, 215/5C and 215/6C are not acquired where the petitioner's lands are situate, it appears that the petitioner on mere apprehension that the 3rd respondent is trying to form a private road filed the present Writ Petition. Therefore, the matter need not be examined in detail and is accordingly disposed of, providing that the respondents in the event require the subject matter property for any public purpose, shall follow the due procedure as contemplated under law.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case as well as in the reply affidavit, submits that despite the above order, the respondents, with the support of the police, are high-handedly interfering with the petitioner’s possession over the subject land. He submits that if the respondents intend to utilize the petitioner’s land, they are bound to follow the procedure contemplated under law. 4 4. Though, in the counter affidavit, the learned counsel for the respondents denies any interference, the photographs filed along with the affidavit and reply affidavit disclose that the authorities are actively involved in the matter, and the allegations made by the petitioner find support from the said photographs. 5. Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, submits that, as stated in the counter affidavit, though some renovation works on the road were undertaken in the year 2021, in view of the objections raised by the petitioner, no further works have been taken up. He also draws the attention of this Court to paragraph No.7 of the counter affidavit, wherein specific assertions have been made. He further contends that the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the photographs are not sustainable. 6. Sri Vuyyuru Rama Manohar, learned counsel representing Sri G. Raju, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, also made submissions with reference to the averments in the counter affidavit of the 1st respondent. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress upon the Court that the respondents, while stating that they are not interfering with the petitioner’s possession, are in fact indulging in high-handed actions, in light of the specific assertions made in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents and 5 submitted today by the learned counsel, this Court is not inclined to examine the matter in detail. 8. Further, if there is any violation of the order dated 27.03.2024 passed in W.P. No. 7160 of 2021, it is open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies, including those available under the Contempt of Courts Act. 9. With the above observations, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 6th November, 2025 cbn 6 118 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CC No.4429 of 2024 6th November, 2025 cbn