Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7544 (AP)

VARIKUNTA GANGISETTI v. G. SRINIVASULU, IAS

CC/454/2025 · 2025-07-30

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010076952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 454/2025 Between: 1. VARIKUNTA GANGISETTI, S/O CHINA GOPAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 2. VARIKUNTA DOKKAYYA, S/O CHINA GOPAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 3. VARIKUNTA YALLAMMA, W/O THIRUPATHAYYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 4. VARIKUNTAYYA GOPALAYYA, S/O SANTEYYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 5. GAMPALA CHINNAKKA, W/O YALLAYYA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 6. VARIKUNTA YALLAMMA, W/O GANGISETTI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 7. VARIKUNTA THIRUPAYYA, S/O GOPAYYA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 8. VARIKUNTA USAYYA, S/O GOPAYYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 9. VARIKUNTA GOPALAMMA, W/O RAMAYYA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 10. GAMPALA VENKATAMMA, W/O THELLAYYA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 11. VARIKUNTA GANISETTI, S/O CHINNAGOPAIAH AGED 50 YEARS. 2 12. MADDELA AYYAVARAYYA, S/O GANGULAYYA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 13. MADDELA GANGAYYA, S/O GANGULAYYA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. 14. KOLA PENCHALAMMA, W/O GURUMURTHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 15. NIJAMANI NARASAYYA, S/O NARASAYYA AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS. 16. NIJAMANI PENCHALAYYA, S/O NARASAYYA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 17. KUDAVALURU MALLAYYA, S/O MALLAYYAM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 18. KUDAVALURU MALLESU, S/O PEDDAMALLAYYA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. 19. MADDELA YANADAMMAA, W/O MADDELLA YANADAIAH AGED 40 YEARS. 20. MADDELA GANGAMMA, W/O YANDADAYYA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 21. MADDELA CHINA MUNEMMA, W/O NARAYANAYYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. ALL ARE R/O. MALINENIPATNAM VILLAGE, ATLOOR MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. G SRINIVASULU IAS, THE SPECIAL COLLECTOR, GALEM NAGARI SRUJALA SRAVANTI PROJECT, NEW COLLECTORATE,KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. SRI A VENKATESU, THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION,UNIT-LL,TELUGU GANGA PROJECT, NEW COLLECTORATE,KADAPA DISTRICT. ...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 3 be pleased to pleased to punish the Respondents under Sec. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for willful, wanton, disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble High Court dated 11.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.930 of 2024 by the Hon'ble Lordships, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to permit the petitioner to implead the proposed Respondent as Respondent No.3 in Contempt Case C.C.No.454 of 2025, and also pending miscellaneous petitions therein, on the file of this Hon'ble High Court, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. VALLEPU JAGADEESH Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. SUSHMA YAGANTI The Court made the following: ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for the willful disobedience of the orders dated 11.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.930 of 2024. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents on counter submitted that the orders of this Court disobedience of which is complained of in the contempt has been complied with however with certain delay and the same is neither willful nor wanton and tendered unconditional apology and prayed to close the contempt. 3. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to filing of the Contempt, the respondent authorities had passed orders, as such, 4 the orders of this Court disobedience of which is complained of in the contempt have been complied with and prayed to close the contempt. 4. Recording the said submissions, as the authorities have complied with the orders dated 11.01.2024, there remains nothing for adjudication and this Court, having satisfied with the reasons on the delay, is inclined to close the contempt. 5. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 31st July, 2025 RKS