APHC010506732024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 320/2025 Between: 1. HARIJANA THIMMAPPA, S/0 ADEPPA, AGED 76 YEARS, R/0 5 SC COLONY, KORLAKUNTA, DEMAKETHEPALLI VILLAGE, CHILAMTHUR MANDAL, SRI SATHYASAI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 1. SHRI T S CHEETAN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. SHRI ANAND KUMAR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. MRS SWOJANYA LAKSHMI, TAHSILDAR, LEPAKSHI MANDAL, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. M P C H RAMAKRI THE MANAGING PARTNER REP., HIS KUSALAVA ORGANIC PRODUCT, R/0 379, KONDURU VILLAGE, LEPAKSHI MANDAL, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, ANDHRA PRADESH 515331, PH 9618288331. 5. S NARENDRA, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SATYASAI DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 320/2025 HARIJANA THIMMAPPA, S/0 ADEPPA, AGED 76 YEARS, R/0 5 SC COLONY, KORLAKUNTA, DEMAKETHEPALLI VILLAGE, CHILAMTHUR MANDAL, SRI SATHYASAI DISTRICT ANDHRA ...PETITIONER AND SHRI T S CHEETAN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. SHRI ANAND KUMAR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. MRS SWOJANYA LAKSHMI, TAHSILDAR, LEPAKSHI MANDAL, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH. M P C H RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, S/O RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, THE MANAGING PARTNER REP., HIS KUSALAVA ORGANIC PRODUCT, R/0 379, KONDURU VILLAGE, LEPAKSHI MANDAL, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, ANDHRA PRADESH 515331, PH 9618288331. S NARENDRA, STATION HOUSE OFFICER, LEPAKSHI MD, SRI SATYASAI DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH. RC,J C.C.No.320 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI HARIJANA THIMMAPPA, S/0 ADEPPA, AGED 76 YEARS, R/0 5-176, SC COLONY, KORLAKUNTA, DEMAKETHEPALLI VILLAGE, CHILAMTHUR MANDAL, SRI SATHYASAI DISTRICT ANDHRA ...PETITIONER SHRI T S CHEETAN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYASAI SHRI ANAND KUMAR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. MRS SWOJANYA LAKSHMI, TAHSILDAR, LEPAKSHI MANDAL, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH. SHNA PRASAD, S/O RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, THE MANAGING PARTNER REP., HIS KUSALAVA ORGANIC PRODUCT, R/0 379, KONDURU VILLAGE, LEPAKSHI MANDAL, SRI SATYASAI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, ANDHRA PRADESH- LEPAKSHI MD, SRI RC,J C.C.No.320 of 2025 2 ...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 punish the respondent authorities by invoking the provisions of Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 by taking appropriate steps in accordance with the law, for willful, wanton and deliberate disobedience of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 22/01/2024 in W.P. No. 1345/2024 in the interest of justice 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 to grant leave to add the respondent No.5, the Station House Officer, as the party respondent/contemnor by allowing the leave petition and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. A JAYANTHI The Court made the following: ORDER Alleging wilful and deliberate disobedience of order dated 22.01.2024 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.1345 of 2024, this Contempt Case has been filed. 2.Heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for respondent. 3. Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the contempt case would contend that despite RC,J C.C.No.320 of 2025 3 specific direction directing the respondent authorities not to take coercive steps against the subject property pursuant to the resumption proceedings of Tahsildar dated 16.05.2023, the respondent authorities changed the web land entries and thereby deleted the name of the petitioner and entered as ‘Government land’. To substantiate his contention, he placed reliance on the Copies of Adangal dated 24.09.2022 and 11.11.2024. He would further contend that the respondent authorities are also trying to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property in utter disobedience of the orders of this Court not to take coercive steps. Therefore, the respondents rendered themselves liable for punishment under Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Contempt Case. 4. Per contra, Smt. A.Jayanthi, learned counsel for respondent no.3, while reiterating the contents of the reply affidavit, would contend that much prior to the order dated 22.01.2024 passed by this court, the web land adangal was modified on 31.10.2023 itself and therefore, there is no disobedience as alleged by the petitioner. She would further contend that since the petitioner/assignee in violation of the conditions of assignment, alienated the property, resumption orders have been passed by the Tahsildar and the purchaser had also filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.12938 of 2024 RC,J C.C.No.320 of 2025 4 and a Coordinate bench of this Court suspended the resumption proceedings, which clearly shows that the petitioner is not at all in possession of the property and the same is in possession of her vendee and therefore it is false to contend that the authorities are trying to interfere with her possession. The Contempt case is meritless and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the contempt case. 5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. Vide orders dated 22.01.2024, this court directed the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps against the subject property pursuant to the proceedings of the Tahsildar, dated 16.05.2023, pending further orders. 7. The petitioner alleges wilful disobedience of the above said orders on twin grounds. First being that the authorities have changed the web land entries by deleting the name of the petitioner and substituting the same with ‘Government land’ and that the authorities are trying to interfere with her possession. RC,J C.C.No.320 of 2025 5 8. The Adangal Report dated 31.10.2023 no doubt shows that the petitioner is pattadar of the subject property. Whereas the Adangal report dated 11.11.2024 shows that the subject property is ‘government land’. 9. The proceedings dated 16.05.2023 of the Tahsildar, Lepakshi vide Rc.No.60/2021/A shows that since the petitioner had in violation of the conditions of assignment alienated the property to one Ch.Rama Krishna Prasad (petitioner in W.P.No.12938 of 2024), orders were passed for resumption of the land to the Government. According to the respondents, in pursuance of the resumption orders, the web land entries were changed substituting the name of the petitioner with that of ‘government land’ on 31.10.2023 itself. The land holding details filed along with the counter shows that web land entry was modified on 31.10.2023. Whereas the order disobedience of which is complained of in this Contempt case was passed on 22.01.2024. Therefore, since the web land entry was modified much prior to the order passed by this Court, there is no disobedience of the order passed by this Court as alleged by the petitioner. 10. Further, copy of the order in W.P.No.12938 of 2024 shows that one Chukkapalli Ramakrishna Prasad filed the said writ petition assailing the resumption orders and a coordinate bench of this Court vide orders dated RC,J C.C.No.320 of 2025 6 13.08.2024 suspended the impugned resumption orders until further orders. Therefore, the said Chukkapalli Ramakrishna Prasad, who according to the respondent authorities is purchaser of the assigned land from the petitioner, is in possession of the property. So, the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent authorities are interfering with his possession also falls to ground. 11. Therefore, the twin grounds projected by the petitioner for alleging disobedience of the orders passed by this Court are proved false. Therefore, this Contempt case deserves dismissal. 12. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR