APHC010103852026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 854/2026 Between: 1. LOKAVARAPU APPALANAIDU, S/O. LATE KONDA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. D.NO. 113 4-75, MANYAPURATLA,LINGAMPETA VILLAGE, NATHAVARAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SHASI BHUSHAN KUMAR, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.522237 2. SMT VIJAYA KRISHNAN I A S, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.531001 3. M SRINIVAS, THE MANDAL PARISHAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NATHAVARAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.531115 4. L REVATHAMMA, THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NARSIPATNAM RURAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 531116 5. Y TARAKESWARA RAO, THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NATHAVARAM POLICE STATION NARSIPATNAM RURAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 531115 6. CHENDHANA REKHA, THE TAHSILDAR, NATHAVARAM MANDAL, 2 ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 531115 7. VANAPALA BABUJI, MANYAPURATIA, GRAM PANCHAYAT REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MANYAPURATIA VILLAGE, NATHAVARAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 531115 ...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 under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 for wilfully, deliberately and violating the Order dated 12.12.2025, granted by this Honble Court in W.P. No. 33354 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 Pleased to dispense with the filing original copy of order W.P.No. 33354 of 2025 dated 12.12.2025 pending disposal of the Contempt Case and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NANILU NAIDU Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.33354 of 2025. 2. Heard Sri P.Nanilu Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the respondents, who are party respondents to W.P.No.33354 of 2025, are trying to interfere with the subject property without giving any prior notice or an opportunity of being heard, the said writ petition has been filed. This Court, by way of orders dated 12.12.2025 disposed of the said writ petition directing the authorities not to interfere with the subject property except under due process of law and if the petitioner wants to claim title over the subject property, he can as well give explanation once a show cause notice is given by the authorities. Learned counsel further contended that despite such directions, the respondents are interfering with the petitioner’s subject property. The said action is willful and deliberate, as such, the authorities are liable to be punished under contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the respondents have not interfered with the subject property and that mere visiting of the subject property cannot be termed as violation of the orders passed by this Court. In the said circumstances, this contempt case is liable to be dismissed with costs, and accordingly prayed to dismiss the contempt. 4 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. 6. This Court by way of orders dated 12.12.2025 passed the following order: “i. The respondents are directed not to interfere with the subject property except under due process of law. ii. If the petitioner wants to claim title over the subject property, he can as well give explanation once a show cause notice is given by the authorities.” 7. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is dispossessed from the subject property or that the authorities are not allowing the petitioner to enter into the property. Mere visiting the subject property does not amount to violation of the orders passed by this Court. 8. In the said circumstances, it cannot be termed as interference as observed by this Court in the writ petition. Hence, there is no contempt. 9. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 26.02.2026 JLV 5 176 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE No:854/2026 Date: 26.02.2026 JLV