IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2251 OF 2022 Contempt Case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts 1971, to punish the Respondents / Contemnors under Sections Act 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willfully and deliberately disobeying the orders of this Hon'ble High Court passed in W.P.No.27498/2015, dated 25.03.2022. Between: 1. Y. Lalitha Kumari, w/o Late Y.Balasubrahmanyam aged 66 years. Housewife, R/o 18/2/275/A4, Ashok Nagar, Road No.3, Abbanna Colony, Tirupathi Town, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Chittoor District. 2. Y. Aditya Kumar, s/o Late Y. Balasubrahmanyam aged 34 years. Private employee, R/o 18/2/275/A4, Ashok Nagar, Road No.3, Abbahna Colony, Tirupathi Town, Tirupathi Urbah Mandal, Chittoor District. 3. G.Aruna, D/o late Y. Srinivasulu Naidu, W/o G. Hari Babu, Aged 44 years. Housewife, R/o D.No.60, Type Quarters Vinayaka Nagar, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 4. A. Prahallada Reddy, s/o A.Venkata Muni Reddy, aged about 49 R/o 10-7-310, Nadhamuni Street, Tirupathi Mandal, Chittoor District. years. Town, Tirupathi Urban ...PETITIONER(S) r AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Discharged), G. Sai Prasad, Principal Secretary for Revenue Department, Secretariate Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. K. Venkata Ramana Reddy, District Collector, Tirupathi District Tirupathi. 3. Kanaka Narasa Reddy, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District. 4. Venkata Ramana, Tahsildar, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi District. 5. Sri Mukeesh Kumar Meena, IAS, Principal Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District 6. Sri Venkateswarulu, District Collector, Tirupati District Tirupathi 7. Sri Ram Mohan, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Tirupati District 8. Smt Bhagya Lakshmi, Tahsildar Tirupati Urban Tirupati District (R-1 is discharged from the contempt case as per court order dated 27/02/24 vide lA No-1/23 in CC No-2251 of 2022) (R-5 to R-8 are impleaded as per Court Order dated 28.03.2025 vide lA No.4 of 2024 in C.C.No 2251 of 2022) ...CONTEMNORS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. RAM BABU DEVAVARAPU Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI P SUBASH Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI NARASIMHA REDDY G.L. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 to 8: SRI T VISHNU TEJA The Court made the following ORDER : 1 - APHC010351422022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2251/2022 Between: Y. Lalitha Kumari and others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State of Andhra Pradesh Discharged and others Counsel for the Petitioner{S): ...CONTEMNOR(S) TRAM BABU DEVAVARAPU Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1.T VISHNU TEJA 2.. 3.NARASIMHA REDDY. G . L 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 25.03.2022 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.27498 of 2015. 2 2. Heard Sri D.Rambabu, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri G.L.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and and Sri T.Vishnu Teja, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that that the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land by way of Ryotwari patta. The petitioners are claiming the right over the subject land on the basis of the orders dated 06.08.2014 ifjsued by the Joint Collector-cum-Settlement Officer. Subsequently the District Collector has cancelled the order of the Joint Collector vide proceedings dated 17.07.2015. Pursuant to the said order, the Tahsildar issued notice dated 09.09.2015 calling upon the petitioners to vacate the subject land as the order of the Joint Collector has been set aside. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.30836 of 2015 and the same was disposed of by way of a common order in Writ Petition Nos.28662 of 2008 and 30836 of 2015 dated 25.03.2022 directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land. Assailing the said order, the respondent authorities have preferred Writ Appeal No.926 of 2022 and the same was dismissed. He further submitted that by virtue of dismissal of Writ Appeal No.926 of 2022, the order passed in Writ Petition No.30836 of 2015 has attained finality. Pursuant to the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.27498 of 2015 directing the respondents to consider their 'N - representation dated 14.08.2015 for mutation of their names in the revenue 3 records. The said Writ Petition was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit application through mee-seva in Form-6-A by requisite fee and on such application the Tahsildar is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners filed representation dated 10.05.2022 to the Tahsildar to mutate their names in the revenue records. On 23.05.2022, the Tahsildar, has issued Form-1 notice calling upon the petitioners to produce the records of the subject land and accordingly they have submitted a detailed reply and the documents. Flowever, till date, the Tahsildar has not mutated their names in the revenue records, as such, the present Contempt has filed. Hence, prayed to punish the respondents under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for willfully and deliberately disobeying the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No.27498 of 2015. 4. Sri G.L.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 while reiterating the contents of the . reply affidavit filed by the Tahsildar contended that after examining the representation of the petitioners for mutation, notice was issued to the petitioners on 23.05.2022 and thereafter a detailed order was issued vide proceedings in Roc.A/445/2022 dated 17.12.2022 rejecting their request for mutation of their names in the revenue records. He further submitted that the said proceedings are issued in strict compliance of the order dated 25.03.2022 in Writ Petition No.27498 of 2015. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Contempt Case. 4 TV Sri Vishnu Teja, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 8 submitted that the scope of the Contempt Case is very limited and this Court cannot go into other aspects. If at all the petitioners have any grievance against the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar on mutation application, the petitioners well question the same before the appropriate forum. Instead of questioning the same, they are fighting for their rights in the present Contempt Case. He further submitted that pursuant to the dismissal of the Writ Appeal, the respondent authorities had preferred appeal before the Director of Settlements and obtained stay against the orders passed by the Joint Collector. Being aggrieved by the grant of stay, the petitioners had filed Writ Petition before this Court and obtained stay here and the respondent authorities have filed vacate stay application and the same is pending adjudication. In view of the facts, there is no contempt as alleged by the petitioners and accordingly prayed to dismiss the Contempt Case. 5. can as In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after filing of the Contempt Case only, the authorities have passed orders on the representation of the petitioners. The Tahsildar has not passed the said order in true spirit. Hence, he is liable to be punished. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned 7. counsel for the parties. This Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition No.27498 of 2015, passed the following order dated 25.03.2022: 8. 5 "During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners agreed to make application through Mee seva in Form N0.6-A prescribed in A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971, by paying requisite fee, for mutation etc. Therefore, liberty is granted to petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 to submit application through Mee seva in Form N0.6-A by paying requisite fee, for such mutation. On such application, the Tahsildar is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law.” 9. It is the contention of the petitioners that pursuant to the order in Writ Petition No.27489 of 2015, the petitioners made an application to the Tahsildar for mutation and on such application, the respondent authorities have issued Form-1 notice and conducted enquiry and not passed orders, as such, the Contempt Case has been filed. Pursuant to the filing of the present Contempt Case only, the respondent authorities have passed orders on the petitioners’ representation on 17.12.2022. 10. Perusal of the record would show that Ryotwari patta granted in favour of the petitioners has been set aside by the District Collector. In pursuance of the said order of the District Collector, the Tahsildar has issued notice dated 09.09.2015 to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same. Writ Petition No.30836 of 2015 has been filed by the petitioners and this Court has set aside the said notice. The order of Single Judge has tested before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.926 of 2022 and the said appeal has dismissed. The submissions of learned counsel for the respondents would go to show that pursuant to the 6 dismissal of the Writ Appeal, the respondent authorities had preferred appeal' before the Director of Settlements, wherein stay has been granted. Against which, the petitioners filed Writ Petition and obtained stay and the respondent authorities have filed vacate stay petition in the said Writ Petition and the same is pending adjudication. This Court, under Contempt of Courts Act, shall only adjudicate upon 11. the fact whether there is a willful disobedience of any judgment/order passed by the Court or not. Perusal of the record would show that the Contempt has been filed on 13.07.2022 whereas the Tahsildar has passed order vide Roc.A/445/2022 dated 17.12.2022. The reasons for not questioning the said order as stated by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the authority has not passed in true spirit and as the Contempt Case is pending. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the scope of the Contempt Case is very limited and this Court cannot look into the other aspects. In view of the above, this Court could not find any disobedience of the 12. order as alleged by the petitioners. Since the petitioners have not satisfied the requirements of the contempt as mandated by the statutory provisions, this Court is not inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to question the order of the Tahsildar vide Roc.A/445/2022 dated 13. 7 17.12.2022 before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Contempt Case, shall stand closed. SOI- E.KAMESWARA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECfiON OFFICER To, 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Discharged), G. Sai Prasad, Principal Secretary for Revenue Department, Secretariate Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. K. Venkata Ramana Reddy, District Collector, Tirupathi District, Tirupathi. 3. Kanaka Narasa Reddy, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, Tirupathi District. 4. Venkata Ramana, Tahsildar, Tirupathi Urban Mandal, Tirupathi District. 5. Sri Mukeesh Kumar Meena, IAS, Principal Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District 6. Sri Venkateswarulu, District Collector, Tirupati District Tirupathi 7. Sri Ram Mohan, Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati, Tirupati District 8. Smt Bhagya Lakshmi, Tahsildar Tirupati Urban Tirupati District 9. One CC to SRI RAM BABU DEVAVARAPU, Advocate [OPUC] 10. One CC to SRI P SUBASH, Advocate [OPUC] 11. One CC to Sri NARASIMHA REDDY G.L. Advocate [OPUC] 12. One CC to Sri T VISHNU TEJA, Advocate [OPUC] 13. Three CD Copies GPC TAC HIGH COURT DATED: 24/04/2025 ORDER CC.No.2251 of 2022 I 2 7 MAY 2025 . Current i>ection coh DISMISSING THIS CONTEMPT CASE