APHC010087382021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] SATURDAY, THE 10th DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 532 OF 2021 Between: 1. SHAIK AYESHA, W/O. SHAIK ABDUL RAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC.- HOUSE WIFE, R/O. NO. 27/114/AUB COMPOUND, PUNGANUR TOWN AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI M HARI NARAYAN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, CHITTOOR. (R-2) 2. SRI P VENAKTA RAYULU, TAHSILDAR, PUNGANUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. (R-3) ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. G L NAGESWAR RAO 2 The Court made the following ORDER: The present Contempt Case is filed alleging violation of interim order dated 22.12.2020 in W.P.No.24521 of 2020 wherein a direction to maintain status quo in respect of petitioner’s house site patta property admeasuring Ac.0.01 ½ cents in Sy.No.45 of Rampalli, Plot No.1107 was directed to be maintained. 2) Heard Mr.G.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.L.Nageswar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions, inter alia to the effect that despite the said interim order, some third parties started illegal construction in the subject matter plot and though it was brought to the notice of respondents, more particularly the 2nd respondent, no action was taken and thereby respondent No.2 is guilty of willful violation of the orders referred to supra. He further submits that in the reply affidavit a reference was made that house Plot No.1107 in Sy.No.47 of Bheemeganipalle village was issued in the name of one Smt.B.Lakshmi Devi and that she is residing by constructing a house therein is not correct. Further, the averment that the petitioner was issued house site patta in Plot No.1109 is not tenable as the said plot was assigned to one Smt.P. Reshma Begum as is evident from the patta, which is filed along with the rejoinder affidavit. Making the said submissions the learned 3 counsel contends that the 2nd respondent is liable for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. 4) On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent made submissions with reference to the reply affidavit and the material filed along with the same, including the photographs stated to be in respect of the constructions made in Plot No.1107 referred to above. As seen from the said material it would appear that patta in respect of Plot No.1107 has been issued to the said Smt.B.Lakshmi Devi and the Field Map dated 27.06.2004 fortifies the same. Be that as it may. 5) Having examined the grievance of the petitioner and material on record, this Court is of the view that no case is made out to proceed further in the present Contempt proceedings. In such view of the matter, Contempt Case is closed. No costs. 6) Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date:10.10.2026 Ssv Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 532 OF 2021 Date:10.10.2026 Ssv