APHC010077022025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT N THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 451 OF 2025 Contempt case U/s.10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act 1971 to Punish the Respondents herein for wilfully violating and disobeying the orders of the High Court dated 11/01/2024 in WP No.661 of 2024. Between: 1. Dunnuthala Sudhakara Reddy, S/o Rami Reddy Aged about 55 years. 2. Dunnuthala Subba Reddy, S/o Rami Reddy Aged about 65 years. 3. Dunnuthala Subba Rami Reddy, S/o Rami Reddy Aged about 60 years. 4. Iragamreddy Rama Subba Reddy, S/o Venkata Subba Reddy Aged about 72 years. (All are R/o Malinenipatnam Village, Atloor Mandal,Kadapa District.) ...Petitioners AND 1. Sri G Srinivasulu IAS, The Special Collector, Sravanti Project, New Collectorate,Kadapa District. Galeru Nagari Srujala 2. Sri A Venkatesu, The Special Deputy Collector Il.Telugu Ganga Project, New Collectorate,Kadapa District. Land Acquisition,Unit- ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI VALLEPU JAGADEESH Counsel for the Respondents : SRI MANNAM VENKATA KRISHNA RAO The Court made the following ORDER : f /. APHC010077022025 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: 451/2025 Between: 1.DUNNUTHALA SUDHAKARA REDDY, S/0 RAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 2.DUNNUTHALA SUBBA REDDY, S/0 RAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 3.DUNNUTHALA SUBBA RAMI REDDY, S/0 RAMI REbDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. f 4.LRAGAMREDDY RAMA SUBBA REDDY, S/0 VENKATA SUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. ALL ARE R/0 MALINENIPATNAM VILLAGE, ATLOOR MANDAL,KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.SRI G SRINIVASULU LAS, THE SPECIAL COLLECTOR, GALERU NAGARI SRUJALA SRAVANTI PROJECT, COLLECTORATE,KADAPA DISTRICT. ‘ NEW 2.SRI A VENKATESU, THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND GANGA ACQUISITION,UNIT-LL,TELUGU COLLECTORATE,KADAPA DISTRICT. PROJECT, NEW ...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 be pleased to pleased to punish the Respondents under Sec. 10 to 12 of may the Hon'ble Lordships, Court may deem fit and IA_NOMO^025 ^he orders Of 11.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.661 of 2024 bv and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble proper ,n the circumstances of the case, Petition under Section 151 cPC in the affidavit filed i * praying that in the circumstances statPd ^ay be pleased To ^'9^ Court ay De pleased to permit to Implead the Respondent No.3 in Contempt Case C.C No miscellaneous petitions therein may be pleased proposed Respondent 451 of 2025, and also on the file of this Hon'ble High Court, as pending and pass Counsel for the Petltioner(S); 1.VALLEPU JAGADEESH Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1.MANNAM VENKATA KRISHNA RAO 3 The Court made the following: ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful disobedience of the orders dated 11.01.2024 passed in W.P.No.661 of 2024. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents on counter submitted that the per the direction of this Court dated 11.01.2024, petitioners made a representation dated 28.06.2024 and on the said representation, the authorities have already passed orders dated 01.03.2025 and in view of the same, there is no willful disobedience on the part of the respondents alleged by the petitioners and the contempt is liable to be closed, accordingly, prayed to close the contempt. The said orders are placed on record. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the authorities have passed orders observing that the decision in respect of W.P.No.661 of as as 3. 2024 will be taken subject to the outcome in W.P.No.9754 of 2009, which is not connected to the present matter at all. He further submitted that, in similar circumstances, the authorities have passed orders giving liberty to the parties to file Execution Petition before competent Civil Court, as such, sought liberty to file Execution Petition before competent Civil Court and prayed to close the contempt. 4. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel. 5. The counter filed by the respondents clearly shows that the respondent authorities have passed orders dated 01.03.2025 on petitioners representation 4 duly observing that the orders in W. P. No.661 of 2024 will be outcome of W.P.No.9754 of 2009. authorities had directed the the petitioners herein had inclined to close the Petition before the competent Civil Court. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is Cosed. There shaii be passed subject to However, in similar set of facts, parties to approach competent civil Court as the and as an intention to approach the Civil Court this Court is contempt giving liberty to the petitioners to file Execution 6. no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/- K.TATA RAO deputy registrar !) ^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1- Sri G Srinivasulu IAS, The Special Collector, Sravanti Project. New Collectorate.Kadapa District. ^ ifTel'^^r Collector, Land Acquisition.Unif- .Telugu Ganga Project, New Collectorate.Kadapa District, ne CC to SRI. VALLEPU JAGADEESH Advocate [OPUCj [?puq 5. Two CD Copies Galeru Nagari Srujala TAC \ ^ HIGH COURT DATED:31/07/2025 'I ORDER CC NO. 451 OF 2025 ii CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE I I E