APHC010313992021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1503 OF 2021 Between: 1. TAMMADALA SURI BABU,, S/O. PAIDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.4-64, KAPU VEEDHI, SIMHACHALAM POST, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. P POLARAJU, S/o Late Sri Appa Rao, aged about 47 years, Occ. Primary Tribunal and Special Deputy Tahsildar (Inams), 0/o the Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam. ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M R S SRINIVAS Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. P SUBASH 2 The Court made the following ORDER: The present Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of the orders dated 23.12.2020, passed in W.P.No.24514 of 2020. While disposing of the said Writ Petition, a direction was issued to the 2nd respondent herein to examine the claim applications of the petitioner and decide the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order. 2) Sri Sk.Mohammad Atthaf, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.M.R.S.Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that as the said order was not implemented the Contempt Case was filed. Further that the respondents, even as per the reply affidavit, passed orders on 28.02.2022, after the stipulated period of eight (08) weeks are over and therefore, this itself would support the case of the petitioner that the respondents are guilty of Contempt of Court. He also seeks time to secure instructions as to whether the said proceedings are communicated to the petitioner. 3) Considered the submissions made. Though the learned counsel sought to impress upon this Court that the Order passed in the Writ Petition is not complied with within the stipulated time, in view of the reasons stated in para Nos.12 and 13 of the reply affidavit, the delay caused in passing the orders cannot be treated as willful disobedience on the part of the respondent. That apart, the respondent passed orders on 28.02.2022 and as per the averments in para No.14 of the reply affidavit, the same was sent through Registered 3 Post. It is also stated that the petitioner challenged the said orders by way of appeal before the RDO and the same is pending consideration. No rejoinder is filed to the averments made in the reply affidavit though the same was filed as long back as on 27.10.2022. Be that as it may. 4) This Court, in the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, holds that no case is made out for punishing the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. 5) Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 20.11.2025 Ssv 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1503 OF 2021 Date: 20.11.2025 Ssv