APHC010586642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3327/2025 Between: 1. KAVALAKUNTLA GOVINDA PRASAD, S/O. PRABHUDASU AGED 57 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. 4 CHOWTAPALEM ROAD, DARSI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 2. KAMBHAMPATI SUNNY BABU, S/O. PRABHUDASU AGED 57 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. 3 DARSI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 1. M SRAVAN KUMAR, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED AGED 45 YEARS. WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, DARSI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. SRI RAYAPATI SRINIVASA RAO, , S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. WORKING AS VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, DARSI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 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 Under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for their willful disobedience of Order Dt. 16.04.2025 passed in W.P No. 9404 of 2025 on the file of this Honble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PETLURI NAGA RAJU 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3327/2025 KAVALAKUNTLA GOVINDA PRASAD, S/O. PRABHUDASU AGED 57 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. 4-299A, OPP MPDO OFFICE, CHOWTAPALEM ROAD, DARSI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT KAMBHAMPATI SUNNY BABU, S/O. PRABHUDASU AGED 57 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. 3-218, CHRISTIAN COLONY, DARSI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND M SRAVAN KUMAR, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED AGED 45 YEARS. WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, DARSI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. SRI RAYAPATI SRINIVASA RAO, , S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT ORKING AS VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, DARSI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...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 d to punish the respondents Under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for their willful disobedience of Order Dt. 16.04.2025 passed in W.P No. 9404 of 2025 on the file of this Honble Court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): RAJU IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3505] KAVALAKUNTLA GOVINDA PRASAD, S/O. PRABHUDASU AGED 57 299A, OPP MPDO OFFICE, KAMBHAMPATI SUNNY BABU, S/O. PRABHUDASU AGED 57 CHRISTIAN COLONY, ...PETITIONER(S) M SRAVAN KUMAR, S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED AGED 45 YEARS. WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, DARSI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. SRI RAYAPATI SRINIVASA RAO, , S/O. NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT ORKING AS VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, DARSI, ...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 d to punish the respondents Under Section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for their willful disobedience of Order Dt. 16.04.2025 passed in W.P No. 9404 of 2025 on the file of this Honble Court and pass 2 Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. K M KRISHNA REDDY 3 The Court made the following Order: The present contempt case is filed seeking to punish the respondents for violating the order dated 16.04.2025 in W.P.No.9404 of 2025, where under this court while disposing of the writ petition directed the respondents more particularly the 1st respondent in the present contempt case not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land except in accordance with law, and if any action is to be initiated the same has to be done after putting the petitioner on notice and offering an opportunity of being heard. 2. It is a case of the petitioners that the respondents, along with staff, visited the subject land on 28.08.2025 and demolished the compound wall situated around the same and thereby, they have violated the orders of this court in aforesaid writ petition. 3. On the other hand, the 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit denying the averments made in support of the contempt case. It is stated that a notice dated 04.11.2025 was issued to the petitioners calling for their objections/explanation. It is further stated that pursuant to the said notice, the petitioners appeared before the 1st respondent and their statements were recorded on 11.11.2025. It is further stated that after hearing the petitioners on the same day, an order was passed whereby and where under the petitioners were prevented from entering into the land admeasuring Ac.1.30 cents in Sy. No. 932 of Darsi Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. The said order further reads that in case if the petitioners violate the same, appropriate action would be initiated as per the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. It 4 is further contention of the respondents that the subject land was never assigned either in favour of the petitioners or their vendors. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. It is the specific case of the petitioners that the respondents demolished the compound wall around the subject land on 28.08.2025. In support of their contention, photographs have been filed along with the contempt case. At the outset, on perusal of the said photographs, it do not show that any demolition has taken place, and there is no compound wall found in the said photographs. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents specifically contends that pursuant to the orders of this Court, the respondents did not interfere with the subject land in any manner and that the demolition alleged to have been taken place is pertaining to some other land in the same survey number. 7. Further, on perusal of the documents filed along with the counter- affidavit, it is clear that notice dated 04.11.2025 was issued to the petitioners asking them to attend enquiry on 11.11.2025, in compliance with the directions of this Court. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioners attended the enquiry before the 1st respondent and in fact they have also given statements on the same date. 5 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the 1st respondent, after hearing the parties, passed an order dated 17.11.2025 specifically stating that the subject land was neither assigned in favour of the petitioners nor in favor of their vendors. On perusal of the order it is observed therein that the subject property is also enumerated in the list of Prohibited properties issued under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. The order further reads that action would be initiated against the petitioners under the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, in the event of any encroachment. 9. From the aforesaid documents filed in support of the counter-affidavit filed, it is clear that there is no violation of the order passed by this court by the respondents in any manner. In such circumstances, there is violation of the order passed by this Court, and accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. It is needless to mention that the petitioners are at liberty to question the order dated 17.11.2025 in accordance with law. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Dt 30.01.2026 KKV