APHC010068442022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 442/2022 Between: 1. CHAPANA NARAYANAMMA,, W/O LATE APPALANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. JONNAVALASA VILLAGE, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. A SURYA KUMARI I A S, W/O NOT KNOWN, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, VIZIANAGARAM 2. BH BHAVANI SANKAR, S/O NOT KNOWN, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIZIANAGARAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. M PRABHAKAR RAO, THE TAHSILDAR, VIZIANAGARAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TADDI NAGESWARA RAO Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. P SUBASH NJS,J C.C No.442 of 2022 2 The Court made the following Order: The present contempt case is filed alleging non-implementation of the orders dated 29.07.2021 in Writ Petition No.15128 of 2021. 2. While disposing of the said writ petition, a direction was issued to the respondents therein to dispose of the Revision and Stay Petition dated 08.06.2021, in accordance with law within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and in the meanwhile, both parties are directed to maintain status quo existing as on the said date. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the respondent No.2/the Revenue Divisional Officer instead of implementing the orders within the time stipulated by this Court, vide Communication dated 06.01.2022, directed the respondent No.3 to conduct enquiry and submit a report in the matter. He submits that when the very order of the Tahsildar is under appeal, issuing a direction to the said Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry and submit a report is wholly unsustainable. At any rate, he submits that as the order of this Court is not implemented within the stipulated time, the respondent No.2 is liable for punishment under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act. 4. On the earlier occasion, this Court has noticed the averments made in the reply-affidavit filed by the respondent.2. In paragraph-4, an attempt was made to justify the delay in disposing of the appeal stating that the deponent of the affidavit i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram is busy due to National Highway Authority of India land acquisition work which is one of the top priority items of Government of India. The said statement gives an impression that the deponent of the affidavit is otherwise busy and not bothered about the orders of the Court. The reasons for the delay in implementation of the Court orders cannot be appreciated. If there is any difficulty for complying with the orders, it is always open to the concerned NJS,J C.C No.442 of 2022 3 authorities to seek extension of time for implementation of the Court orders. No application in this regard is made in the present case. 5. Further, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, being the Appellate Authority, the respondent No.2 is required to examine to the matter/order appealed against the orders of the respondent No.3/Tahsildar independently, but not by calling for a report from the officer whose order is under challenge. Be that as it may. 6. Considering the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent No.2, who appeared physically before this Court and taking into account that an order dated 22.12.2025 was passed by the present Appellate Authority, this Court is inclined to close the contempt case. Needless to observe that, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 22.12.2025 referred to supra, she may seek recourse to law. 7. Accordingly, this Contempt Case is closed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:02.01.2026 Ksj