::1:: APHC010561212024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4743/2024 Between: 1. KOTTAPALLI KRISHNA KUMARI, W/O. KANUMURTHY VENKATARAMANA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.50-97-13, BACK SIDE OF SFS SCHOOL, T.P.T COLONY SEETAMMADHARA, VISHAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRI SWAPNIL DINKAR PUNDKAR IAS, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SRI FARMAN AHMED KHAN, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. JOINT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. M KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. BADE PAPARAO, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER TAHSILDAR, MELIAPUTTI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ::2:: 5. GURUGUBELLI RAJULU, S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. JOINT SUB REGISTRAR, PATHAPATNAM, SRIKAKULAM, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. RUDRA PRATAP DEV, S/O. SRI SARVAGNAYA JAGANATHA GAJAPATHI NARAYANA DEV, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. GAJAPATHI PALACE, PARLAKHEMUNDHI TOWN, GAJAPATHI DISTRICT, ODISHA STATE, PRESENTLY R/O.D.NO.7, MANIKESWARI ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU. 7. VIJAY KUMAR, S/O. PANDURANGA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. SINKI STREET, PARLAKHEMUDI POST, GAJAPATI DISTRICT. 8. M/S SRI RAGHAVA CONSTRUCTIONS, REGISTERED OFFICE AT AVB PURAM KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA, REP. BY ITS PARTNER, RANTIKOTA MOHAN RAO, S/O. RAGHAVA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.5-1- 35/322/101 NEAR SHIVALAYAM, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD. ...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 respondent herein under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for deliberately disobeying the order of this Hon'ble Court passed in I.A.No.01 of 2023 in W.P. No. 33101 of 2023 dated 23.12.2023 by not obeying the same and for his conduct in bringing down the dignity and majesty of this Hon'ble Court and pass ::3:: Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M K RAJ KUMAR Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. RAMA RAO KOCHIRI 2. P RAJKUMAR 3. T VISHNU TEJA 4. V V SATISH ::4:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.C.No.4743 of 2024 This Court made the following ORDER: The present Contempt Petition is filed alleging that even though this Hon’ble Court passed orders directing the parties in the writ petition to maintain status-quo in respect of the land in Sy.No.8 and Sy.No.4 of Ranghadughati Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District, the official respondents as well as third parties violated the orders and created number of documents by way of sale deeds dated 18.12.2023 and also dated 28.10.2024. Moreover the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition and 4th respondent in the Contempt Petition i.e., the Tahsildar also issued mutation proceedings in respect of the land in Sy.Nos.8A and 4A in favour of the third party, who acquired the property pending status-quo orders is nothing but violation of orders of this Court apart from committing offence Under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short “Act, 1971”). ::5:: 2. On the other hand, learned counsels for respondents appearing for Respondents 1 to 7 submits that the alleged civil transactions have been taken place between the third parties on 18.12.2023 which is much before to the filing of the writ petition itself. As far as registered sale deed is concerned i.e., sale deed dated 28.10.2024 which was executed in between third parties and none were party respondents in the writ petition. Moreover as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner the mutation proceedings dated 10.10.2024 by the 4th respondent herein issuing mutation in favour of the third party that too in relation to the Sy.Nos.8A and 4A but not in respect of Sy.Nos.8 and 4 against which the order of status-quo was directed by this Court. Therefore, it is neither violation nor flouting of any orders by the respondents as alleged and respondents did not commit any offence as alleged by the petitioner under Section 10 and 12 of the Act, 1971 and therefore the Contempt Petition should be closed with costs. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondents and perused the material placed on record. 4. Admittedly, the Writ Petition No.33101 of 2023 is filed on 21.12.2023 and this Court was pleased to pass an interim orders after hearing the matter on 23.12.2023 as under: “Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. ::6:: Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel, Status-quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained in respect of the subject property, till the next date of hearing. For filing counter, list the matter on 12.01.2024 along with W.P.No.33083 of 2023.” 5. On perusal of the interim orders, it is clear and categorical that there is a direction directing parties to the writ petition to maintain status-quo obtaining as on the date of the writ petition in respect of subject landed property in Sy.Nos.8 and 4 of Ranghadughati Village, Meliaputti Mandal, Srikakulam District. As contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged alienation is in violation of status-quo orders and were taken place on 18.12.2023, on perusal of the impugned action of the execution of sale deeds much prior to the filing of the writ petition itself. Therefore, the respondents flouted and violated the orders of this Court is contrary to the facts. The other sale deed which was canvassed by the petitioner that was in violation of the orders of this Court is dated 28.10.2024 is executed between two third parties and admittedly they are not parties to the writ petition. The other contention of the petitioner that mutation proceedings were issued in respect of land in Sy.Nos.8A and 4A, but does not correlate the survey numbers as mentioned by this Court in the status-quo order. In the absence of any correlation with the facts and the order passed by ::7:: this Court and any alleged alienation or execution is happened before the orders of this Court between third parties, who are not parties to the writ petition, certainly such action is out of the purview of this petition. Hence no contempt is made out by the petitioner in this Contempt case in defiance of the orders of this Court. Therefore, the principles of strict sense in contempt petition should be observed. Accordingly, there is no contemptuous action as alleged by the petitioner. Hence, the present Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed with costs, for intentionally abusing the process of law. 6. Hence, the petitioner is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as costs towards the Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates Association, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati within a period of four (04) weeks from today and file payment receipt of the same before the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati within one (01) week thereafter. 7. According, the Contempt Case is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Contempt Case shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 21.01.2026 krk ::8:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.C.No.4743 of 2024 DT: 21.01.2026 krk 76