APHC010102242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Friday, the Thirtieth day of January Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Contempt Case No: 677 of 2025 Between: 1. Yamagani Damodar, S/o. Y.Pedda Pullaiah, aged about 30 years, R/o.H.No.3/47, Ratnapalli Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. Yamagani Anathaiah, S/o. Y.Pedda Pullaiah, aged about 28 years, R/o.H No.3/47, Ratnapalli Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Kurnool District. 3. Yamagani Vijay Kumar, S/o. Y.PeddaPullaiah, aged about 26 years, R/o.H.No.3/47, Ratnapalli Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Kurnool District. ...Petitioners and 1. Sri Ashok, Sub-Inspector of Police, Veldurthy, Veldurthy Police Station, Kurnool. ….Contemnor Counsel for the petitioners: 1. Kalangi Sumalatha Counsel for the contemnor: 1. A.Jayanthi The Court made the following: 2 C.C.No.677 of 2025 ORDER: The contempt case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for the alleged willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 15.02.2024 of this Court in W.P.No.2025 of 2024. 2. The case of the petitioners is briefly as follows: a. The petitioners filed the writ petition seeking writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondents Nos.3 to 5, viz., Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dhone, Nandyal District; Circle- Inspector, Dhone, Police Station, Nandyal District and; Sub-Inspector of Police, Veldurthy, Veldurthy Police Station, Kurnool, not to threaten the petitioners to handover the land property situated in Sy.No.1118/2 to an extent of Ac.1.86 cents, Sy.No.1035/2 to an extent of Ac.0.29 cents, Sy.No.1035/3 to an extent of Ac.0.41 cents, Sy.No.986/1 to an extent of Ac.0.21 cents and Sy.No.986/4 to an extent of Ac.0.08 cents, all situated within Ratnapalli Village, Veldurthy Mandal, Kurnool District (presently Nandyal District) to the respondents Nos.6 to 10. b. Along with the writ petition, I.A.No.1 of 2024 was filed seeking similar interim order. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 15.02.2024 with the order which reads as follows: “Sri V.S.S.Pavaki, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home-II, on written instructions of the 5th respondent dated 05.02.2024, submitted that no complaint was received against the petitioners nor was any case registered against them and that the 5th respondent did not interfere in the civil disputes. It is further submitted that the petitioners were not even called to the police station so far. 3 C.C.No.677 of 2025 2. In reply, Ms.S.Pranavi, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioners, requested to record the submissions of the learned Government Pleader for Home-II and dispose of the writ petition. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.” c. Thus, it is only on the representation of the Assistant Government Pleader for Home, basing on the written instructions of the respondent herein (who is the respondent No.5 in the writ petition) that no complaint had been received against the petitioners nor had any case been registered against them and that the respondent No.5 had not interfered in civil disputes, the learned counsel for the petitioners requested to dispose of the writ petition recording such submissions. d. However, during the month of December 2024, the respondent No.5 who is the sole respondent herein interfered with the civil disputes between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents in the writ petition by calling the petitioner No.2 from his mobile No.912110118 to come to the police station and threatened with dire consequences if the land is not handed over to the unofficial respondents. The respondent is aware of the order of this Court in the writ petition, yet, deliberately favouring the unofficial respondents in the writ petition and interfering with the civil disputes. e. On 27.01.2025, the respondent herein again called the petitioners through the mobile phone with numbers 9985845466 and 912110118 and threatened and pressurized the petitioners to handover the land to the unofficial respondents or else he would implicate the petitioners in criminal cases. On 07.02.2025, the respondent instructed his staff to handover the land to the unofficial respondents. Staff of the respondent came to the petitioners’ land at 5.30 P.M. on the same day and forcefully removed J.C.B.No.AP 39 JX 2378, which was used by the 4 C.C.No.677 of 2025 petitioners to level the land for agricultural operations. Hence, the respondent is liable to be punished for contempt of the order of this Court. 3. The respondent filed a counter with averments, briefly, as follows: a. The allegations against the respondent are denied. This Court passed order on 15.02.2024 in W.P.No.2025 of 2024 as mentioned in the petition. b. On 27.01.2025, the unofficial respondents in the writ petition came to the police station of the respondent and gave an oral complaint, basing on which the police called the petitioners through phone for preliminary enquiry, but the petitioners did not turn up and therefore, the respondent advised the unofficial respondents to settle the matter before a competent civil Court. c. On 07.02.2025, the police received a phone call from the Ratnapalli villagers that people of two groups were creating nuisance in the disputed land and therefore the respondent sent his staff to the disputed site to pacify the situation. Accordingly, the staff went to the site, pacified the situation and advised both parties to settle the matter before a civil Court. d. The respondent has never interfered with civil disputes of the petitioners with the unofficial respondents. The respondent has high regard and respect for orders of High Court and never disobeyed. The respondent sincerely tenders unconditional apology, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the respondent committed any act of contempt. The petition may be closed. 4. Sri G.Sravan Kumar, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the respondent had committed contempt of the Court as mentioned in the petition and the 5 C.C.No.677 of 2025 allegation was supported by the photographs enclosed to the petition and the admissions in the counter affidavit. 5. Sri P.Mallikarjuna Rao, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the respondent, contended that the respondent acted only in pursuance of the phone call received from the villagers reporting law and order problem at the disputed site and it is not mere civil dispute since there was a galata between the two groups of people. Unless there is willful disobedience of the order of the Court, action for contempt does not lie. 6. There is no denial of the fact stated by the respondent that a phone call was made by the villagers reporting galata at the disputed site. As and when a report of such incident is received by police, it is their duty to respond to the call. As such, merely because the respondent deputed his staff to visit the disputed site and took action for pacifying the situation, it cannot be called as willful disobedience of the order of this Court. 7. If there is any dispute between the two parties, they ought to have resolved their disputes through a competent civil Court. As and when there is law and order problem, it is the duty of the police to attend to it. As such, the action of the respondent in the present case alleged by the petitioners as contempt of the Court is not contempt in fact or law. As such, there is no merit in the contempt case. 8. In the result, the contempt case is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this contempt case shall stand closed. ___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated: 30.01.2026 NSM 6 C.C.No.677 of 2025 79 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Contempt Case No: 677 of 2025 Date: 30.01.2026 NSM