APHC010335552026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.2344 of 2026 Between: 1. PANTAM SRINU,, S/O. MUTYALU, AGED 52 YEARS, MALE, R/O. D.NO.2108, SINGAGUDEM VILLAGE, LINGAPALEM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT - 534462 ...PETITIONER AND 1. NAZEEM MUL LISA, S/o. Not Known, Age 45 years, Male, The Mandal Revenue Officer, Lingapalem Mandal, Lingapalem, Eluru District - 534462 ...CONTEMNOR 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 Contemnor/respondent No.4 for his willful disobedience of the order of the Honble Court in W.P. No.20599 of 2025 Dt. 18.09.2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. SUSHMA YAGANTI The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.2344 of 2026 ORDER: Precisely, Writ Petition No.20599 of 2025 is filed to direct the 4th respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer to implement orders of the 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition-Revenue Divisional Officer. The 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition-Revenue Divisional Officer, vide file No.230708/2016/D dated 25.05.2018, on verifying the records and BASING ON THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR, arrived to a decision that the agricultural land to an extent of Acs.1.53 cents in R.S.No.228/1 is devolved on both Sri Pantham Mutyalu and Sri Pantham Subba Rao, through succession from their late father Sri Pantham Veeraiah and directed to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued in the name of Pantham Veeraiah and directed to issue new pattadar passbooks as per the respective shares. It seems that there is no flaw in the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. The said order was not implemented by the 4th respondent in the Writ Petition–Mandal Revenue Officer. Hence, the Writ Petition was filed. 2. The Tahsildar, Lingapalem Mandal, who is the contemnor in the present Contempt Case furnished written instructions dated 08.08.2025 to the learned Government Pleader and the same was placed before 3 this Court. Basing upon the written instructions placed by the learned Government Pleader, the Writ Petition was disposed of, vide order dated 18.09.2025, directing the 4th respondent-Tahsildar, Lingapalem Mandal to enforce the orders of the 2nd and 3rd respondents, in accordance with law, as envisaged in A.P.Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971. 3. Aggrieved by the order of this Court in W.P.No.20599 of 2025 dated 18.09.2025, at the instance of the respondent in the Contempt Case, an intra-Court appeal was filed before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1190 of 2025. A Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the said Writ Appeal in the following: "In these circumstances, the 4th respondent – Tahsildar, while going into the question of implementation of the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer, shall not stall or stop further proceedings in the mutation proceedings, unless it is demonstrated that O.S.No.3 of 2023 has been filed in relation to land situated in R.S.No.228-1 also." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein would submit that despite disposing of the Writ Appeal, the respondent-contemnor has not implemented the orders of this Court. 5. This Court while disposing of the Writ Petition, categorically stated basing upon the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the suit in relation to the land situated in R.S.No.228/2 not in 4 relation to the land situated in R.S.No.228/1, which is the survey number of the subject land is situated. 6. The respondent-contemnor has filed counter affidavit in the Contempt Case and relied on the paragraph No.8 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows: "It is respectfully submitted that, I have absolute obedience to this Honnourable Court’s orders, I have issued a notice to the petitioner and Pantam Prabhudasu S/o. Subbarao on 03.10.2025, summoning the Petitioner and the co- sharer, Pantham Prabhudasu, to appear before the authorities to reconciliation and partition of land through consensus but they are not came into consensus and claiming same portion of the land." 7. The respondent – contemnor vide proceedings dated 23.07.2026, endorsed a letter observing that the subject land is a private zeroyithi property currently locked in family litigation, and as included in Dispute Register, the petitioner’s application for mutation cannot be executed straightaway through the online portal in its current form. 8. A Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid Writ Appeal has directed the Tahsildar to implement the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, if the subject property of the suit does not pertain to survey No.228/1. This clearly indicates that the Tahsildar has wilfully violated the orders of this Court, despite directions of this Court and the directions of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1190 of 2025 5 dated 17.11.2025. The respondent-contemnor has made some derogatory remarks on the Court while the party went for implementation of the orders of this Court. This clearly shows that the officer is not intended to implement the orders of this Court. This clearly indicates that the contemnor has violated the orders of this Court. 9. Therefore, the respondent-contemnor is liable to be punished under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and accordingly he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment in civil prison for a period of one week and also liable to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards fine and the fine shall be payable to the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of one week from today. The order comes into force right now and the Registry is directed to implement the orders of this Court forthwith. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent has requested to suspend the sentence imposed against the respondent-contemnor. One of the derogatory remark that made by the officer against this Court before the party is, the order in W.P.No.20599 of 2025 is passed without counter (evidence is there). The Court has disposed the Writ Petition basing on the written instructions. Therefore, this Court is declined to consider the request of the learned counsel for the respondent-contemnor. 6 11. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would request this Court to modify the sentence imposed against the respondent- contemnor and requested this Court to direct the respondent to do service in any orphanage. 12. Considering the request made by the learned counsel for the respondent, the order of imprisonment in civil prison for a period of seven days is modified and the respondent is directed to serve in any of the orphanage for a period of seven (7) days from tomorrow, i.e., from 22.09.2026. The respondent is directed to file evidence on the next date of hearing that he served at the orphanage. However, the respondent is directed to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- as directed by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed. For compliance of this order, list the Contempt Case on 01.10.2026. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 21.09.2026 Note: Issue cc today B/O siva 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.2344 of 2026 Date: 21.09.2026 siva