APHC010601932023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 6500 OF 2023 Between: 1. P.JAFEENA BEE,, W/O ABDULLAH KHAN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, GANI VILLAGE, GADIVEMULA MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. P.SUNANDA,, W/O NOORULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, MANCHALAKATTA VILLAGE, GADIVEMULA MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. P.NAZIA BEE,, W/O MABU KHAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, BILAKALAGUDURU VILLAGE, GADIVEMULA MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SRI RAHUL KUMAR REDDY, ., S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. THE JOINT COLLECTOR CUM LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, NANDYAL DISTRICT, NANDYAL, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. SRI A SRINIVAS, S/O A.LAKSHMI NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NANDYAL REVENUE DIVISION, NANDYAL, ANDHRA PRADESH ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A SRINATH Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. C VAMSI KRISHNA 2 SRS, J C.C.No.6500 of 2023 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri A. Srinath, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri C.Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The above contempt case was filed complaining about the violation of the order dated 16.08.2023 in W.P.No.10326 of 2019. 3. The petitioners filed the aforementioned writ petition assailing the proceedings issued by the RDO, Nandyal vide reference No.Rc.B/300/2019 dated 21.06.2019, rejecting the claim of the petitioners to pay compensation. 4. The said writ petition was disposed of on 16.08.2023, and the operative portion is read as follows: “11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and respondent Nos.3 and 4 shall pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of lands resumed (assigned to petitioners as per the pattas referred to supra) situated at Gani Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool District, as per LAO-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division and other V. Mekala Pandu and others case, within a period of two months. There shall be no order as to costs.” 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it was specifically pleaded that the respondents have failed to comply with the order. 6. Pending the contempt case, the respondents paid the compensation to the petitioners as determined by the respondents therein. They also paid the compensation to other persons as stipulated in the petitioners’ order. Though 3 SRS, J C.C.No.6500 of 2023 there was some delay in paying the compensation, the amounts were paid to the petitioners. 7. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any violation of the order 16.08.2023 in W.P.No.10326 of 2019. [ 8. Accordingly, the contempt case is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 29.01.2026 BSK 4 SRS, J C.C.No.6500 of 2023 179 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 6500 OF 2023 Date: 29.01.2026 BSK