APHC010175612021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH CONTEMPT CASE NO: 895/2021 Between: 1. GEDELA GOWRAMMA, W/O.LATE RAMU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.OCC. DAY LABOR, R/O. KOMMAVALASA VILLAGE, BOBBILI MANDAL, VIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH. 2. CHAPPA SIMHACHALAMA, S/O.LATE KUMAR NAIDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. OCC DAY LABOR, R/ O. KOMMAVALASA VILLAGE, BOBBILI MANDAL, VIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH. 3. CHOPPA RAMULU, S/O.LATE APPLA NAIDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.OCC DAY LABOR, R/O. KOMMAVALASA VILLAGE, BOBBILI MANDAL, VIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH. 4. CHAPPA SATYAM, S/O. LATE NARAYANA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.OCC DAY LABOR, R/O. KOMMAVALASA VILLAGE, BOBBILI MANDAL, VIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH. (R2 TO R4 NOT NECESSARY PARTY) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. HARI JAWHAR LAL, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTIRCT., AP. 2. VIDHAYA KHARE, SUB COLLECTOR, PARVATHIPURAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT , AP. 2 3. REDDY SAIKRISHNA, TAHSILDAR, BOBBILI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT , AP. ...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 be pleased to pleased to summons and punish the respondents herein under the provisions of 10 to 12 of Contempt of Court Act 1971 for the action of respondents with intentionally, deliberately, willfully violated the orders of this Hon'ble Court passed in interim order in WP No.407/2021 dated 06.012021 and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. P SUBASH The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CONTEMPT CASE NO: 895 of 2021 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 06.01.2021 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.407 of 2021. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that the respondents have now changed the location of the construction of the building and not interfering with the petitioners’ property and hence, no further orders are required to be passed in the contempt case. In view of the above, the Contempt Case is closed. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Dt: 07.11.2025 sj 4 111 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CONTEMPT CASE NO: 895 of 2021 Dt: 07.11.2025 sj