APHC010067592021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE No.769 of 2021 Between: 1. Badugu Lova Raju, S/o.Late Kanna Rao (died) his L.R., 2. Badugu Simhachalam S/o.Late Pedda Achaiah, Aged 52 years, Agricultural Cooly, R/o.Padalavani Lakshmi Puram Village, Payakaraopet Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, and others. … Petitioners AND 1. Sri Vinay Chandu, District Collector, Visakhapatnam District, Visakhapatnam, and others. .… Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.V.Krishna Swaroop Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.P.Subash The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Mr.A.Rama Krishna, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr.P.Subash, learned counsel for the respondents, who appeared through online. 2. The contempt case is filed alleging violation of the orders dated 18.2.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.158 of 2019. While disposing of the writ petition, a learned Judge directed the conduct of survey in respect of the subject matter lands in the writ petition, in coordination and consultation with the officers of the Forest Department, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 2 3. Mr.P.Subash, learned counsel for the respondents, while drawing the attention of this Court to the endorsement dated 06.10.2020, submits that pursuant to the orders in the writ petition, survey is conducted and it is found that the land in question was in possession of the Forest Department. While referring to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 and the material enclosed to it, he submits that in fact a joint inspection of the officers of the Survey, Revenue and Forest Departments was conducted on 16.4.2021 and thereafter an endorsement dated 17.4.2021 was issued inter alia, to the effect that the petitioners did not submit any record or document to substantiate their claim and further that the land shown by the petitioners during the inspection falls within the Reserve Forest Area, and there is natural forest growth in the said land. He also submits that vide the endorsement dated 17.4.2021, the claim of the petitioners was rejected. 4. No reply affidavit is filed denying the averments made in the counter of the respondent No.3. 5. In view of the same, the Contempt Case is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to work out their remedies in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J Date: 29.1.2026 vasu