APHC010085122025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1263/2025 Between: 1. DONAKONDA CHITTEMMA, W/O. SUBRAHMANYAM AGE 43 YEARS, R/O. REDDIVARI PALLI, CHITTECHERLA VILLAGE,THETTUPALLI POST, CHINNA GOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. K IMRAN BASHA, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN. CL OF POLICE, BHAKARAPET POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 2. SRI B RAGHAVENDRA, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN, SI OF POLICE, BHAKARAPET POLICE STATION, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. NOTE AS PER COURT ORDERS DATED 29/04/2025 RESPONDENTS NO 1 IS IMPLEADED VIDE IA 1/2025 ...CONTEMNOR(S): 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 respondents for violation of the orders in W.P.No.24180 of 2024, dt.25- 10-2024 under Sec. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to 2 grant leave/permission to the petitioner to implead/join the 1st respondent in the above contempt case and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G VENKATA REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. T S RAYALU The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO:1263 OF 2025 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 25.10.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.24180 of 2024. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present contempt case is filed alleging that violation of the orders dated 25.10.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.24180 of 2024, wherein, this Court specifically observed that in view of the specific statement made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the official respondents i.e., respondent Nos. 3 and 4 who were alleged in the writ petition are interfering with the possession of the petitioner, are not interfering with the possession of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court, on considering the said submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, specifically directed the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 not to interfere/ dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following due process of law. He further submits that on 09.02.2025 the respondent No.2 along with unofficial respondents demolished/ dismantled the fence and fencing poles and interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner in violation of the orders of this Court. Hence, the contempt case. 4 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit, wherein, it is stated that the respondent No.2 never visited the subject land of the petitioner and not caused any demolition as alleged. It is further stated that there are civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents and there are case and counter criminal cases registered at the instance of the petitioner as well as the respondents. Not just one, but four cases have been registered. 5. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, more particularly, the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is an admitted fact that as per the order of this Court, there are civil disputes and civil case is pending between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents wherein, interim injunction was granted against the petitioner in O.S.No.235 of 2017. On perusal of the criminal cases as well as civil cases, it is clear that there are civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents in respect of the lands and boundaries. Therefore, the same can be sorted out by way of civil proceedings which are pending for adjudication. The disputes between the private individuals trying to implicate official respondents even though it is clearly stated during hearing the writ petition that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are not interfering and if necessary they will follow due process of law and the said statement was reiterated they did not interfered and dispossessed the petitioner. Admittedly, against the petitioner there is an injunction is operating. Therefore, petitioner himself is not in possession of the property. It is not the case of the 5 petitioner that he was dispossessed by the respondent No.2 and the same cannot be entertained. Moreover, in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, it has been clearly stated that he has never interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s property. 5. In view of the foregoing discussion, the alleged allegation of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 committed contempt on 09.02.2025 cannot be held correct, in view of specific denial by the respondents that the same was not committed by him. Moreso, no evidence was placed before this Court except making a statement in the contempt petition. In the absence of any evidence, the petitioner has failed to make out any contempt against the respondent No.2. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, this Court cannot enforce any contempt case against the respondents on the guise of violation or disobedience on part of the respondents and no further orders are necessary. 7. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 10.03.2026 BSP 6 91 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA (closed) Contempt Case No.1263 of 2025 10.03.2026 BSP