Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12304 (AP)

Garuda Subbaiah Das v. B V Nageswara Reddy

CC/3562/2026 · 2026-09-27

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

::1:: APHC010506412026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3562/2026 Between: 1. GARUDA SUBBAIAH DAS, S/O G K SUBBANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,RIO H.NO. 14-125, SC COLONY,KONDAPET, BHANUMUKKALA VILLAGE,BANAGANAPALLI MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. B V NAGESWARA REDDY, S/o Not known to the petitioner,Tahsildar, Banaganapalli Mandal,Nandyal district. 518124 ...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 to punish the Respondent herein in changing the nature of classification of the property in Sy.No.94 of Bhanumukkala Village, Baganapally mandal, Nandyala district on 2-6-2026 is in violation of the Interim Orders dt. 12.08.2025 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G V S MEHAR KUMAR Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. ::2:: The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Court, vide order dated 12.08.2025, suspended the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, dated 20.06.2025, pending disposal of the writ petition. 2. The petitioner had earlier made a representation to the Revenue Divisional Officer through a grievance dated 03.03.2024, requesting the authorities to grant Ac.0.26 cents of land to the petitioner. The Revenue Divisional Officer, vide proceedings dated 20.06.2025, intimated the petitioner that the request for grant of Ac.0.26 cents of land was not maintainable, as the said land is a Rasta. 3. However, this Court suspended the said proceedings. Therefore, the present Contempt Case has been filed alleging violation of the order dated 12.08.2025. However, there is no positive direction in favour of the petitioner under the said order. 4. Therefore, the Contempt Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO 28.09.2026 RMD ::3:: 41 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3562/2026 28.09.2026 RMD