APHC010357012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1829/2025 Between: 1. TALARI VENKATA RAMUDU, S/O. PEDDA SILANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. ONDUTIA CHENAKEPALLE VILLAGE, GHANI (POST), GADIVEMULA MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 518010. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SMT RAJAKUMARI IAS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDHYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. V MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, PRESENTLY WORKING AS REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P - 518501. 3. VENKAT RAMANA, PRESENTLY WORKING AS MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, GADIVEMULA MANDAL, NANDHYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 518508. 4. MR ANIL KUMAR CHALAMALASETTYDISCHARGED, THE CEO AND MD OF GREENKO GROUP PRIVATE COMPANY, PLOT NO. 13, SY.NO.64 PART, BLOCK-D, HITECH CITY LAYOUT, MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA - 500081. R 4 IS DISCHARGED FORM THE CONTEMPT CASE AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 21.01.26, VIDE IA NO-1/25 IN CC NO-1829/2025 5. SRINIVASA NAIDU, PRESENTLY WORKING AS PROJECT DIRECTOR, GREENKO GROUP PRIVATE COMPANY, GUMMITAM THANDA, ORVAKAL MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 518010 ...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 their willfull, deliberate and wanton violation of the Order dated 22.04.2025 passed in W.P.No. 9712 of 2025 by this Hon’ble Court under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and pass s 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 May be pleased to delete the name of the petitioner from the array of respondents in the above Contempt Case and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VINOD KUMAR PEMMASANI Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. SUSHMA YAGANTI 2. SRINIVAS MANTHA 3. C PRAKASH REDDY THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 2. The present contempt petition is filed alleging that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 are continuing the work of installation of solar panels in the subject land of the petitioner which is in violation of the order of this Court dated 22.04.2025 as such the respondents are liable for contempt under Sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further assess that the petitioner herein is the pattadhar and possessor of the land admeasuring total extent of 16.32 cents in various survey Nos.795, 797, 797, 802, 797 and 797 respectively but this Court passed an order in respect of Ac.3.72 cents in survey No.795. He further submits that in violation of the orders of this Court, the respondents herein carried their activities ignoring interim order granted in respect of an extent of Ac.3.72 cents in Survey No.795 and as such the respondents 1 to 3 and 5 are liable for contempt under Section 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act. 4. On the other hand, respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5 filed counter affidavit. Respondent No.1 in their counter stated as under: “6. It is submitted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh have ordered to alienate the lands in Sy.No.791, 794, 795, 797, 799, 800, 802, 803, 804, 806, 80 to a total extent of Ac.973.55 cents situated in Chenkapalli Village of Gadivemula Mandal to M/s Greenko AP 01 IREP Private Limited vide G.O.Ms.No.134 dated 15.03.2024. 8. It is submitted that further enquiry has been conducted and in the enquiry, it is revealed that all the pattadhar entries in web land adangal from Sy.No.795 to 802 are found irregular and made entries without possession and enjoyment, no relevant documents and assignment. Hence, the entries which were irregular, were deleted from web land adangal vide proceedings of the Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Nandayl vide Rc.B1/147/2022 Dt.04.03.2024. The Collector and District Magistrate, Nandyal has issued orders to alienate and handed over the possession of the lands to M/s Greenko AP 01 IREP Private Limited vide Rc.B1.147/2022 Dt: 14.08.2024. As per orders of the Collector and District Magistrate, Nandyal, the then Tahsildar, Gadivemula Mandal has handed over possession to M/s Greeenko AP 01 IREP Private Limited vide reference Rc.A.430/2024 Dt: 04.09.2024.” 5. Respondent No.3 also reiterated what was stated by the respondent No.1. 6. Respondent No.5 in their counter stated as under: “7. I submit that this Hon’ble Court passed interim orders on 22.04.2025 directing both the parties to maintain status quo existing as on that date in respect of the said Ac.3.72 cents of land in Sy.No.795 of Chenkapalli village. I submit that after coming to know about the interim order, M/s.Greenko AP 01 IREP Pvt. Ltd., kept an extent of Ac.4.00 cents in Sy.No.795 vacant, as claimed by the Petitioner, and no activity is carried on in the said land. The allegation that this respondent willfully and wantonly violated this Hon’ble Court order is specifically denied as false.” 7. On perusal of the counter affidavits filed by the respondents and the relevant paragraphs as extracted above, it is observed that respondent No.5 handed over the possession of the land being the competent authority on 04.09.2024 in respect of entire land in survey No.795 along with other lands in survey Nos.791, 794, 797, 799 and 800, 802 to 807 totaling to an extent of Ac.973.55 cents, for which the concerned compensation was paid by the respondent No.5 herein. Therefore the possession of the property even in respect of entire land in survey No.795 is vested with the 5th respondent on or before the orders of this Court dated 04.09.2024. So admittedly the interim orders passed by this Court is on 22.04.2025. By that time, the subject land was in possession of the 5th respondent. 8. It is settled law that the word of status quo was explained and defined by this Court in various applications, wherein it is stated that the order of status quo means whatever is the status on the date of order, it should be continued. 9. On perusal of the proceedings dated 04.09.2024 wherein the 5th respondent was handed over the possession, itself indicates that the land is not in the possession of 5th respondent herein. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even after the order of status quo granted by this Court, the 5th respondent violated the orders and entered the possession is contrary to the facts and findings. 11. On the other hand, the 5th respondent also stated in his counter affidavit the land in survey No.795 was listed as vacant but in the possession of 4th respondent. 12. In view of the clear and categorical statement made by the respondent No.5, the petitioner has not made out any case to pass an order under Sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act against the respondent herein by holding that the respondents violated the orders of this Court. 13. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed herein since there is no violation on behalf of the respondents or flouting the orders of this Court. 14. Accordingly, the contempt is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 30.01.2026 M K K 213 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE No: 1829 of 2025 Date: 30.01.2026 M K K