APHC010057082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 341/2025 Between: 1. M. THIRUPATHI REDDY, SON OF LATE ANANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O.CHINTAGUNTA VILLAGE AND POST, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. A THAMEEM ANASARIYA IAS, , THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE, A.P. 2. B SAHADITH VENKATA TRIVINADH I A S, THE SUB COLLECTOR, MARKAPUR DIVISION, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DIST, AP. 3. K CHIRANJEEVI, TAHSILDAR, THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DIST, AP. 4. D GALEEB, V.R.O., THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, CHINTAGUNTA VILLAGE, MARKAPUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. MUKESH KUMAR MEENA I A S, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY IN REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST., AP. ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PARTY IN PERSON 2 Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. J DILEEP KUMAR 2. The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri M. Thirupathi Reddy, Party-in-Person and Sri J. Dilip Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3. 2. The present Contempt Petition is filed for non-compliance of the direction of this Court in Para No.2 of the Order dated 13.11.2024 in W.P.No.26957 of 2023. This Court, in Para No.6 of the said Order, had directed the Official Respondents to consider the Application No. MUT230406030567 dated 06.04.2023 of the Petitioner and pass fresh Orders in accordance with law. 3. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that despite the fact that the Application was submitted to the Official Respondents way back on 06.04.2023, even after this Court had passed an Order on 13.11.2024, the Official Respondents have not considered the said Application. 4. Sri J. Dilip Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 had filed the separate Counter Affidavits for the said Respondents. In the Counter Affidavit of Respondent No.2, the proceeding in the form of Final Orders passed by the Respondent No.2 dated 30.01.2025 is also filed as annexure. 5. Sri J. Dilip Kumar, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 would submit that the Order passed by this Court has been complied with, inasmuch as the Respondent No.2 had passed the Final Order on 30.01.2025. 6. Since the Order of this Court dated 13.11.2024 in W.P.No.26957 of 2023 has been complied with, this Court is of the view that the Respondents 3 herein are not liable for contempt, inasmuch as the said Respondents have complied with the Order of this Court. 7. Needless to state that the Contempt Petitioner shall always have the liberty to avail all other remedies as available to him under law. In view of the pendency of the present Contempt Case, the statutory period of limitation, if any, shall be set off from the date of communication of the Final Order dated 30.01.2025 to the Petitioner till 30.04.2025. 8.With these observations and directions, this Contempt Case stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 9.Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 07.04.2025 JKS 4 42 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 341 of 2025 07.04.2025 JKS