APHC010057092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 429/2025 Between: Inturi Nirmala ...PETITIONER AND Sri B Siva Rama Krishnaiah ...CONTEMNOR Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAGA RAJU KOLLATI Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO:429/2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 17.10.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.No.34317 of 2016. The operative portion of the order dated 17.10.2016 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 34317 of 2016 is extracted hereunder: “It is well settled that whenever the Government needs land for any public purpose, it is under obligation to take necessary steps for acquiring the required extent of land. If the said land is held by private individuals, the proceedings under the Act are to be initiated. On the other hand, if the government land is occupied by any person, he/she can be evicted by following due process of law. It is the case of the petitioner herein that no notice has been issued to her, much less any proceedings being initiated against her. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land except by following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.” 3. On perusal of the said order, it is evident that the petitioner cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law. Even as per assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. As such, there is no violation on part of the respondents till today. Moreso, it is statutory compliance on part of the petitioner, as per Section 20 of Contempt of Courts Act, any violation or guilt of respondents can be challenged within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Admittedly, the order passed by this Court is in the year 2016, till date, there is no compliant on part of the petitioner that the order passed by this Court is neither violated nor deviated. 4. In view of the same, filing of the present contempt case in the year 2025 alleging that the construction of compound wall in violation of the orders of this Court after lapse of nearly one decade is liable to be rejected, since the period of limitation of one year lapsed long back. 5. Accordingly, the present contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 20.02.2025 BSP 176 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) Contempt Case No.429 of 2025 20.02.2025 BSP