APHC010384612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2003 OF 2025 Between: 1. Gopavaram Rajagopal, S/o.Krishnaiah Aged 43 years, R/o.1 -42, Pedda Gopavaram Village Gopavaram Mandal YSR Kadapa District Andhra Pradesh ...Petitioner AND 1. SRI TRIBHUVAN REDDY, Tahsildar Gopavaram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, AP ...Respondent 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 be pleased to pleased to punish the respondent under Sec.10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for willfully and deliberately disobeying the orders dt.27-03-2025 passed in W.P.No. 8053/2025 Counsel for the Petitioner: D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent SUSHMA YAGANTI The Court made the following order: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2003 OF 2025 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondent for willful disobedience of the orders dated 27.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8053 of 2025. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court on 27.03.2025 passed an order in W.P.No.8053 of 2025, directing the petitioner herein to submit an explanation to the notice issued by the respondent No.4 dated 18.03.2025, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, along with the documents proving title and possession over the subject property. Upon receiving the explanation and supporting documents, the respondent No.4 is directed to consider and dispose of the same, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other stake holders, if any, within a period of two (02) months, thereafter. He further submits that even though this Court specifically directed the respondents to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner along with the supporting documents, so far, the respondents did not choose to consider the same. Hence, the Contempt Case. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent filed counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated that pending the contempt case, the respondent has considered the case of the petitioner and passed an order dated 3 15.11.2025 in compliance of the orders of this Court. Therefore, in view of passing of the orders dated 15.11.2025, the respondents have complied with the orders dated 27.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.8053 of 2025. Hence, no further orders are required to be passed in the contempt case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not refute the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent and requested to close the contempt case. 6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 10.09.2026 BSP 4 129 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2003 OF 2025 10.09.2026 BSP