1 APHC010431432024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3866/2024 Between: 1. CHINTALAPURI NARASAMMA, S/O KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 1/82, IDAMADAKA VILLAGE, DUWUR MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Y O NANDAN, S/o not Known, Currently working as the Vice Chairman, Aged about 38 years, Annamayya Urban Development Authority (ANUDA), Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh. ...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 punish the respondent for his willful, deliberate and wanton violation of the order dated 22.04.2024 in W.P.No. 31442 of 2023 of this Honble Court, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI Counsel for the Contemnor: 1. S PRANATHI 2 The court made the following order: This contempt case is filed against the respondent for willful disobedience of orders dated 22.04.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.31442/2023. 2. Heard Miss Mounika, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss R.Sowmya Reddy representing Smt S.Pranathi, learned counsel for respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.31442/2023, the authorities have not taken any action against the unauthorized lay out made by the unofficial respondent therein in the subject property. As such filed the present contempt case and prayed to punish the contemnor. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contemnor while relying on the Para No.9 of the counter affidavit submitted that, the authority concerned has made arrangement and erected a board stating that they are unauthorized layouts, also, a public notice was published in the daily newspaper and in the official website of the Kadapa Urban Development Authority (KUDA), Kadapa informing the public in general, not to purchase plots in such unauthorized layouts and no registrations or building permissions will be granted for such plots. In the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot file a contempt case stating that the authorities have not taken steps against the unauthorized 3 layout. As such contempt is liable to be dismissed and prayed to dismiss the contempt case. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. This Court has disposed of the W.P.No.31442/2023 on 22.04.2024 with the following direction: “The 3rd respondent is directed to take further course of action in accordance with law against the unauthorized lay out, if any, made by the unofficial respondents in the subject property. It is needless to observe that even if 10% of the land is required to be handed over to the local body for Public Open Space, the authorities have to take steps in that regard as well.” 7. The petitioner has filed the present contempt case stating that pursuant to the above orders, the authorities have not taken any action against the unauthorized lay out made by the unofficial respondent therein in the subject property. However, a perusal of the material available of record and counter affidavit, specifically Para No.09, would indicate that the authority concerned has taken steps against the unauthorized lay out by erecting board regarding unauthorized lay outs, publishing in the newspaper and in the official website of the Kadapa Urban Development Authority (KUDA), Kadapa informing the public, not to purchase plots in such unauthorized layouts and no registrations or building permissions will be granted for such plots. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the authority concerned has not taken any action against 4 the unauthorized lay outs, as such, there lies no contempt against the respondent and contempt is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, contempt case is dismissed. It is needless to observe that, the authorities shall take steps, against the alleged land owners, if sold any of the properties in the unauthorized lay outs. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS