APHC010051612018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] SATURDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 179/2018 Between: 1. P.SUBBA RAIDU, OCC- RETIRED CLASS IV, EMPLOYEE, T.B. HOSPITAL, R/O H.NO.24-3-147, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, DARGAMITTA, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 2. BELLAMKONDA MALAKONDAIAH, OCC- RETIRED CLASS IV, EMPLOYEE, T.B. HOSPITAL, R/O H.NO24-1019, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, DARGAMITTA, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. JADU KOTESWARA RAO, OCC-EMPLOYEE, T.B.HOSPITAL, R/O 24- 1027, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, DARGAMITTA, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. VANNAM BANGARAMMA, OCC- SWEEPER, T.B.HOSPITAL, R/O H.NO.24-1028, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, DARGAMITTA, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 5. M.BHAGYAMMA, OCC-OFFICE ATTENDER, R/O H.NO24-2-882, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, DARGAMITTA, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 6. G.SUBBAMMA, OCC-THOTI, T.B.HOSPITAL, R/O H.NO.24-1022, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, DARGAMITTA, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 7. K.VENKATARAMANAMMA, OCC- SWEEPER, R/O H.NO. 13-113, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, DARGAMITTA, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) 2 AND 1. M NARASIMHA RAO, The Tahsidar, Nellore Mandal, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ...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 respondent for his willful disobedience towards the order dated 27.04.2016 made in W.P.M.P. No. 18668 of 2016 in W.P. No. 15033 of 2016 under section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PENUMAKA VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3 The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioners are filed this case on the ground that the respondents have violated the orders of the erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad, dated 27.04.2026 in W.P.M.P.No.18668 of 2016 in W.P.No.15033 of 2016, which reads as follows: “There shall be interim direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ over the subject property without following due process of law”. 2. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents tried to enter into the house of the petitioners and attempted to demolish the house. However, no such demolition has been pleaded. 3. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to proceed with the contempt case and accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date: 07.03.2026 KA 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 179/2018 Date: 07.03.2026 KA