APHC010632312025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 3660/2025 Between: 1. P. JANARDHANA REDDY,, S/O. P. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC MANDAL, BALAJI DISTRICT. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MOPUR VILLAGE, DAKKILI 2. M. BHASKARAIAH,, S/O. PAPPAIAH, AGED 59 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. MOPUR VILLAGE, DAKKILI MANDAL, BALAJI DISTRICT. 3. M. KARUNAKARAN,, S/O. RAMANAIAH, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. MOPUR VILLAGE, DAKKILI MANDAL, BALAJI DISTRICT. 4. P. SOMA SHEKHAR REDDY,, S/O. KRISHNA REDDY, AGED 51 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, FO. MOPUR VILLAGE, DAKKILI MANDAL, BALAJI DISTRICT. 5. P. SRINIVASULU REDDY, , S/O. CHANCHU RAMA REDDY, AGED 79 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. MOPUR VILLAGE, DAKKILI MANDAL, BALAJI DISTRICT. 6. V. MUNIRATNAMA,, W/O. RAJA MOHAN, AGED 63 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. LINGASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, DAKKILI MANDAL, BALAJI DISTRICT. 7. V. RAJA MOHAN,, S/O. MUNNAIAH NAIDU, AGED 68 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, BALAJI DISTRICT. R/O. LINGASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, DAKKILI MANDAL 8. K. CHANDRAIAH,, S/O. VENKATA SUBBA NAIDU, AGED 63 YEARS OCC MANDAL, BALAJI DISTRICT. AGRICULTURE, R/O. 2 LINGASAMUDRAM VILLAGE, DAKKILI 9. R. VEERASWAMY NAIDU,, S/O. ABBA NAIDU, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC DISTRICT. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MOPUR VILLAGE, DAKKILI MANDAL, BALAJI 10. M. BALAKRISHNAIAH,, S/O. PENCHALAIAH, AGED 69 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE DISTRICT. R/O. MOPUR VILLAGE, DAKKILI MANDAL, BALAJI 11. S. VENKATESHWARULU,, S/O. SESHAMA NAIDU, AGED 58 YEARS, OCC DISTRICT. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MOPUR VILLAGE, DAKKILI MANDAL, BALAJI ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. DR S VENKATESWAR, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI, BALAJI DISTRICT. 2. MR RAGHVENDRA MEENA, THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUDURU, BALAJI DISTRICT. 3. MR M SREENIVAS, THE TAHSILDAR, DAKKILI MANDAL, BALAJI 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 be pleased to may be pleased to summon the Respondents herein and punish them for their willful, blatant actions in utter violation of the order dated 12.08.2025 passed in W.P. No.13098 of 2025, which attracts Sec. 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. SATYANARAYANA NIMMALA Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. SUSHMA YAGANTI The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.3660 of 2025 ORDER: This Court, vide order dated 12.08.2025, disposed of W.P.No.13098 of 2025, directing the respondents to address the representation submitted by the petitioners. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondent authorities have addressed the petitioner’s representation and rejected the claim of the petitioners. At this juncture, learned counsel for petitioners sought liberty to challenge the rejection order passed by the respondents. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Contempt Case is closed, granting liberty to petitioners to assail the rejection orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 05.01.2026 KBN 4 23 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Contempt Case No.3660 of 2025 05.01.2026 KKBBNN