APHC010429602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2284/2025 Between: 1. K VAANISREE, K VAANISREE, W/O K DEVENDRUDU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/O 11318 14TH LANE, ARUNODYA NAGAR, JEEVAKONA, TIRUPATHI TOWN, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. NARAPAREDY MOURYA IAS, Commissioner, The Municipal Corporation of Timpati Rep by and its commissioner Timpati Timpathi District ...CONTEMNOR 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 prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be to summon, prosecute and punish the respondent U/S's 10 to 12 of the contempt of Court Act for willful and deliberate violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 20-01- 2025 in WP No. 988 of 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DWARAMPUDI SAVITHRI Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI The Court made the following: 2 VS,J C.C.No.2284 of 2025 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed complaining willful and deliberate violation of the orders dated 20.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.988 of 2025, wherein this Court passed the following order: “….In view of the same, instead of keeping the writ petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh application, duly enclosing all the necessary documents to prove her right over the subject property, to the respondents herein. Upon receiving such application, the respondents are directed to consider the same, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.” 2. No representation on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed counter affidavit stating as follows: a) As per the directions of this Hon’ble High Court, the petitioner submitted a fresh application dated 05.02.2025 along with a copy of sale deed, link documents and requested to mutate the property in her name. The application of the petitioner along with the enclosures received on 05.02.2025 was referred to the Municipal Standing Counsel, Tirupati for legal opinion. The same was informed to the petitioner vide office endorsement Roc.No.751/2025/A5 dt.28.02.2025 and the same was received by petitioner’s husband Sri K.Devendrudu. b) It is further stated that subsequently, the petitioner has submitted another application dated 22.02.2025 requesting the respondent to take action on her application dated 05.02.2025. In reply to the same, the 3 VS,J C.C.No.2284 of 2025 petitioner was issued an endorsement vide Roc.No.751/2025/A5 dt.24.03.2025 informing that the property is covered in a Civil Suit in O.S.No.67 of 2024 against the Sri G.Naveendra Kumar who sold the property to the petitioner and that the Suit is still pending. c) It is further stated that the petitioner has submitted a copy of the petition dt.05.02.2025 in P.G.R.S. Programme held on 23.06.2025 for which the petitioner was issued an endorsement PGRS No.4/2025/A5 dated 28.06.2025 informing that action on her application for mutation will be taken soon after receipt of judgment in O.S.No.67/2024 and after declaration of title of her vendor of the land in Sy.No.11/2B /2A, Akkarampalle village. 4. The said facts would establish that in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner has submitted a fresh application for mutation and the same was kept pending due to the reasons assigned vide endorsement dated 28.06.2025 issued by the respondent. 5. In view of the reasons stated by the respondent in the counter affidavit, this Court is of the opinion that no contempt lies. 6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________ ___ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 06.02.2026 PBS