Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 23854 (AP)

SHIRI PARK, ANANTAPUR & 8 OTHERS v. NAGAVENI, ANANTAPUR DIST. & 5 OTHERS

CC/542/2015 · 2026-02-24

Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010462772015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CONTEMPT CASE NO: 542/2015 Between: 1. SHIRI PARK, ANANTAPUR & 8 OTHERS, REGISTERED NO. 161/2013, REPRESENTED PRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY L. RAVINDRANATH, S/O L. P. RANGAPPA, AGED 55 YEARS, FLAT NO.202, SHIRI PARK VIEW APARTMENTS, WARD NO. 6, ANANTAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ANANTAPUR. 2. SANGI REDDY VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY,, S/O LATE S. S IDDA REDDY, AGED 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED BANK OFFICER, R/O FLAT NO. 302, SHIRI PARK VIEW APARTMENTS, WARD NO. 6, ANANTAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ANANTAPUR. 3. PEMMANA SRINIVASA REDDY,, S/O P. BALA NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DENTIST, R/O FLAT NO. 403, SHIRI PARK VIEW APARTMENTS, WARD NO. 6, ANANTAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ANANTAPUR. 4. VYZA SREE DEVI,, W/O K. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, AGED 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DERMATOLOGIST, R/O FLAT NO. 402, SHIRI PARK VIEW APARTMENTS, WARD NO. 6, ANANTAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ANANTAPUR. 5. KUTAGULLA VENGA REDDY,, S/O LATE K.V. VEMA REDDY, AGED 64 YEARS, OCCUPATION RETIRED OFFICER, R/O FLAT NO. 303, SHIRI PARK VIEW APARTMENTS, WARD NO. 6, ANANTAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ANANTAPUR. 6. KANDERI JAYANTHI,, W/O K. KULAYAPPA, AGED 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION HOUSEWIFE, R/O FLAT NO. 504, SHIRI PARK VIEW APARTMENTS, WARD NO. 6, ANANTAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ANANTAPUR. 2 7. SANE RAMA CHANDRA REDDY,, S/O LATE S.P. VEERA REDDY, AGED 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O FLAT NO. 104, SHIRI PARK VIEW APARTMENTS, WARD NO. 6, ANANTAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ANANTAPUR. 8. LINGUTLA RAVINDRANATH,, S/O L.P.RANGAPPA, AGED 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION CONTRACTOR, R/O FLAT NO. 202, SHIRI PARK VIEW APARTMENTS, WARD NO. 6, ANANTAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ANANTAPUR. 9. DEVI REDDY VENKAT VIDYAVATHI,, W/O D.V. MANOHAR REDDY, AGED 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, R/O FLAT NO. 404, SHIRI PARK VIEW APARTMENTS, WARD NO. 6, ANANTAPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ANANTAPUR. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. NAGAVENI ANANTAPUR DIST 5 OTHERS, COMMISSIONER, THE ANANTAPURAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ANANTAPURAM CITY AND DISTRICT. 2. SHIRI DEVELOPERS, ANANTAPUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR. H. NADEEM AHMED, S/O H. NAZEER AHMED, AGED 45 YEARS, RIO DOOR NO. 6-4-108/5, MARUTHINAGAR, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 3. MRS M SHILPA CHOWDARY, W/O J. SIRISH REDDY, AGED 29 YEARS, EMPLOYEE IN PRIVATE COMPANY, USA, R/O 11450, COLONY ROW UNIT 310, BROOM FIELD, CO 800021, COLARADO STATE, U.S.A., REPRESENTED BY HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR. H. NADEEM AHMED, S/O M. H. NAZEER AHMED, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 6-4-108/5, MARUTHINAGAR, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. 4. MRS M SOWMYA CHOWDARY, W/O DR. N. BHARAT KUMAR, AGED 27 YEARS, STUDENT, RIO DOOR NO. 16-537, N.R. ESTATES, INDIRA BHAVAN ROAD, NELLORE TOWN AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 5. MR G SUDHAKAR, S/O LATE GURRAM SREERAMULU, AGED 54 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.6-3-183, RAMNAGAR, ANANTAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT 6. MR G RAVINDRANATH, S/O LATE GURRAM SREERAMULU, AGED 48 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO.6-3-183, RAMNAGAR, ANANTAPUR 3 TOWN AND MANDAL, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. SC FOR MC RAYALSEEMA 2. MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri A. Aravind Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K. Srinivas, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 2. This Contempt Case is filed for complaining of the violation of the Interim Order dated 29.01.2015 in W.P.No.1321 of 2015. 3. It transpires from record that a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide Order dated 18.12.2025, was pleased to close the Writ Petition by leaving it open to the Respondent No.2 therein to pass appropriate Orders on the Application submitted by the Petitioners for regularization. 4. In this view of the matter, this Contempt Case is closed. No order as to costs. 5. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:25.02.2026 Vns