Date of reserved for orders :09.07.2026 Date of pronouncement :11.09.2026 Date of uploading :15.09.2026 APHC010106082024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY, THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1516 OF 2024 Between: 1. DINDI CHANDRA RAO,, S/O SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O H.NO.558, BALARAMPURAM COLONY, M- KOTHAVALASA VILLAGE, JAMI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. CHINTA BANGAR RAJU, TAHSILDAR (TRANSFERRED), BOGAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANGARAM DISTRICT. 2. PERLI SYAM PRASAD, TAHSILDAR (PRESENT), BOGAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANGARAM DISTRICT. 3. MAMIDIPALLI SURESH, S/O. VEERABHADRA RAO, TAHSILDAR, BOGAPURAM. R 3 SUO MOTO IMPLEDED AS PER COURT ORDER DT.19.02.2025. 4. M RAMANAMMA, TAHSILDHAR, BOGHAPURAM. R 4 IS IMPLEADED AS SUO-MOTO AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 22.01.2026, IN CC NO-1516 OF 2024 ...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V N NARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. K M KRISHNA REDDY 2 The Court made the following ORDER: Petitioner aggrieved by the action of Tahsildar, Bogapuram Mandal, in rejecting his request for Digital Sign on Form 1(B) in respect of the land situated in Sy.Nos.18/1 etc., of Ravivalasa Village and for consequential direction to issue Digital Sign Form 1(B) in respect of the same, filed W.P.No.5183 of 2023. After hearing both sides, by a detailed order dated 18.10.2023, in the light of the decision of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Erukula Uma Vs. Government of A.P., 1 , while opining that the impugned Endorsement dated 29.07.2022 of the Tahsildar is not sustainable and further that even as per the circular instructions of CCLA, A.P., mere pendency of civil suit in the absence of any order of injunction etc., cannot be a ground to reject the application for mutation for issuance of Pattadar Passbook etc., the said endorsement was set aside. The Tahsildar / 3rd respondent therein was further directed to take necessary action for issuing Digital Sign Form 1(B) in respect of the writ petition subject lands, in accordance with law and the procedure in vogue, as expeditiously as possible. 2) The above referred order, it is not in dispute, was implemented except in respect of land of an extent of Ac.0-71 cents in Sy.No.18/8 of Ravivalasa Village. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner filed the present contempt case. 3) On receipt of notice in the Contempt Case, the concerned Tahsildars discharging functions at the relevant point of time who have been impleaded 1 2014 (2) ALD 228 3 as party respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed reply affidavits. Respondent No.3 was impleaded suo moto vide order dated 19.02.2025 and the same reads as follows: “At the time of considering the matter, Mr.K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent on instructions states that the respondents 1 & 2 have been transferred and unless the new incumbent is impleaded as party respondent to the present proceedings, the digital signature in 1-B in respect of an extent of Ac.0.71cents in Survey No.18/8 cannot be affected in terms of the orders passed in the writ petition. In view of the same, the present incumbent i.e., Mamidipalli Suresh, S/o.Veerabadra Rao, Tahsildar, Bhogapuram is suo-moto impleaded as respondent No.3. List this case on 28.02.2025. In the meanwhile, learned counsel for the respondents to secure specific instructions for implementation of the orders passed by this Court. Registry to make necessary incorporations wherever it is required.” 4) Subsequently, the said respondent No.3 filed reply affidavit on 28.03.2025. Prior to that on 21.03.2025 it was represented that the Order dated 18.10.2023 in W.P.No.5183 of 2023 was complied with. However, after hearing the counsel on both sides, with reference to entries in the web land portal on 10.04.2025, the matter was adjourned to 20.06.2025 and in the meanwhile, it was left open to the petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent with the relevant material, concerning the title and right over the land of an extent of Ac.0-71 cents in Sy.No.18/8, with reference to which Pattadar passbook was issued on 09.05.2008, to enable him to get the entries in the web land register recorded. Subsequently the 3rd respondent was transferred. In the meanwhile it would appear that son of the petitioner made an application before the Collector, Vizianagaram District, in the Public Grievance 4 Redressal System. On the said application an enquiry was purportedly conducted and an Endorsement dated 09.07.2025 was issued by the Tahsildar, who took charge in place of respondent No.3. Through the said endorsement application was rejected. 5) Under the above said circumstances, the 4th respondent was impleaded by an order dated 22.01.2026, while expressing prima facie view that the endorsement dated 09.07.2025 and the stand taken therein amounts to willful defiance of the Court orders. For ready reference the relevant portion of the order may be reproduced hereunder: “This Court has passed an Order dated 18.10.2023 in W.P.No.5183 of 2023, which was filed assailing the Endorsement dated 29.07.2022 of the respondent No.3 therein i.e., the Tahsildhar, Boghapuram Mandal, rejecting the petitioner’s request for Digital Signature on Form-1B in respect of the lands situated in Survey Nos.18/1, 18/3, 18/8, 18/15, 18/17, 20/17, 20/18, 33/2 & 33/5 to an extent of Ac.0.88 cents, Ac.0.28 cents, Ac.0.71 cents, Ac.0.07 cents, Ac.0.14 cents, Ac.0.84 cents, Ac.1.02 cents, Ac.0.20 cents and Ac.0.05 cents, totaling to an extent of Ac.4.19 cents of Ravivalasa Village, Boghapuram Mandal. While allowing the writ petition by setting aside the impugned Endorsement dated 29.07.2022, a direction was issued to the 3rd respondent to take necessary action for issuing Form-1B with Digital Signature in respect of the subject matter lands, in accordance with the Law and the procedure in vogue, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The 3rd respondent has not implemented the order insofar as the Survey No.18/8, consisting an extent of Ac.0.71 cents. Alleging non-implementation of the said order, the petitioner filed the Contempt Case. Initially, the respondents 1 and 2 filed their counters. Recording the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, this Court on 19.02.2025, suo-moto, impleaded the 3rd respondent herein as he took charge as Tahsildhar, Boghapuram. The respondent No.3 also filed counter dated 22.03.2025. 5 Thereafter, after hearing the counsel on both sides, this Court passed the following order on 10.04.2025. “Heard learned counsel for the both sides at length. List the matter on 20.06.2025. In the meanwhile, the petitioner may approach the 3rd respondent with the relevant material concerning the title and rights over land to an extent of Ac.0.71 cents in Sy.No.18/8, with reference to which the pattadar passbook was issued on 09.05.2008, for getting entries in the web land register recorded.” Subsequently, the learned Government Pleader, while placing a copy of the letter dated 16.07.2025, submitted that on the representation made by the petitioner on 28.04.2025, an Endorsement dated 09.07.2025 was issued by the present incumbent-Tahsildar one Smt. M. Ramanamma, with regard to the grievance of the petitioner. As seen from the said endorsement, the reason for non- implementation of the orders of this Court is that an appeal in W.A.No.594 of 2025 filed by a third party is pending against the order passed in W.P.No.5183 of 2023. Further, in the letter dated 16.07.2025 addressed by the said Officer to the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, the other reasons appears to be that a Registered Sale Deed dated 04.11.2004 was executed by the pattadar in favour of the present contempt petitioner i.e., Dindi Chandra Rao, without obtaining the consent of the daughters. Except mentioning these aspects, there is no whisper as to whether the said officer is restrained from entertaining the claim of the petitioner of effecting entries in the revenue records in respect of the subject matter land or not to issue digitally signed Form-1B. In fact, the said officer is aware of the orders passed by this Court and the stand taken by her amounts to willful defiance. Therefore, the said Officer Smt.M.Ramanamma, Tahsildhar, Boghapuram, is impleaded, suo-moto, as respondent No.4 in the Contempt Case. Registry to make necessary incorporations in the cause title and issue notice to the impleaded respondent.” 6 6) Subsequently, the 4th respondent filed reply affidavit to which the petitioner filed rejoinder (counter to reply affidavit). 7) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned Government Pleader representing the respective respondents. Perused the material on record. 8) At the outset, it may be relevant to mention that the factual background of the case that led to filing of the Writ Petition referred to above and the orders passed by this Court need not be dealt with in detail. Suffice to state that the grievance of the petitioner is in respect of land of an extent of Ac.0-71 cents situated in Sy.No.18/8 of Ravivalasa Village. While it is the case of the petitioner that he purchased the said extent of land along with other lands situated in different survey numbers i.e., 18/1 etc., through a Registered Sale Deed dated 04.11.2004 and the revenue authorities, more particularly, the Tahsildar, despite the orders dated 18.10.2023 in the Writ Petition has not issued Digital Signed Form 1(B) in respect of an extent of Ac.0-71 cents in Sy.No.18/8. Material filed along with the Contempt Case i.e., statement of Encumbrance Certificate dated 11.02.2024 clearly reflects the transaction dated 04.11.2004 in respect of the lands purchased by the petitioner from one Bayyapu Sanyasamma. 9) In the light of the above stated position, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that what all the revenue authorities, more particularly the concerned Tahsildar, even at the relevant point of time was required to do is to make/effect entries in the revenue records in the web land register. Instead 7 of that, the 4th respondent issued endorsement dated 09.07.2025 on the premise that a Writ Appeal is pending against the orders passed in W.P.No.5183 of 2023 and that even before the land in question was sold to the petitioner, the same was alienated to one Mr.Bayyapu Satyam, that the land is not in possession of the petitioner. Further that the land was registered in favour of the petitioner, though a suit is filed by sisters-in-law of the petitioner. He submits that the said Endorsement dated 09.07.2025 is nothing but overreaching the orders of the Court and issued owing to political pressures. He accordingly urges that the Contempt Case may be allowed by imposing punishment on the respondents more particularly, respondent No.4 for issuing endorsement dated 09.07.2025. 10) Learned Government Pleader made submissions to defend the action of the respondents. He contends that there is no willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court as explained in the reply affidavits. He sought to impress upon the Court that the 4th respondent has not committed any act which would amount to violation of the order dated 18.10.2023 and therefore urges for dismissal of the Contempt Case. 11) On a consideration of the rival submissions and material available on record, it is discernible from the Endorsement dated 09.07.2025 that the 4th respondent is well aware of the orders dated 18.10.2023 passed by this Court. After taking charge no steps have been taken by the 4th respondent to examine the claim of the petitioner, more particularly, in the light of the proceedings dated 10.04.2025 referred to supra. 8 12) On the other hand, the 4th respondent have taken shelter that an Appeal i.e., W.A.No.594 of 2025 filed by a 3rd party is pending against the order passed in W.P.No.5183 of 2023. Further, that the Registered Sale Deed dated 04.10.2004 was executed in favour of the petitioner by Smt.Sanyasamma (his mother-in-law) without the knowledge of her three daughters and a suit is pending. At this stage, it may be pertinent to emphasize that on the very same reason of pendency of civil suit, the request of the petitioner was rejected on the earlier occasion, which led to filing of W.P.No.5183 of 2023, wherein the rejection was found fault with. Even in W.A.No.594 of 2025, it is not the case of the 4th respondent that the order in W.P.No.5183 of 2023 was stayed or suspended. Under the said circumstances, more particularly when the 4th respondent is well aware of the orders passed in the said Writ Petition, she has the audacity of issuing proceedings dated 09.07.2025 in a contemptuous manner. The said officer had ample opportunity to examine the claim of the petitioner with reference to sale deed dated 04.11.2004, 13) It may also be relevant to mention that while this Court has not declared any rights of the parties, much less the petitioner, in respect of the above mentioned land, but directed issuance of Digital Signed Form 1(B). It is settled law that mere entry in the revenue records does not confer title. There is no impediment for implementing the orders of the Court, against which no appeal is preferred by the revenue authorities nor is any stay granted in the appeal filed by some third parties. Therefore, Endorsement dated 09.07.2025 9 as issued by the 4th respondent cannot be countenanced and the action of the 4th respondent in issuing said Endorsement amounts to violation of the order dated 18.10.2023 willfully and deliberately. Therefore, she is liable for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. 14) In normal circumstances appropriate orders, including imprisonment of the contemnor may be directed. However as the 4th respondent being lady officer who is aged about 61 years, taking a lenient view, this Court deems it appropriate to impose fine of Rs.2,000/-. That apart, it is a fit case to impose costs. Reliance in this regard may be placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sebastian M. Hongray Vs Union of India, wherein it was inter alia held that for the violation of the orders, imprisonment and fine can be imposed. That apart, costs can also be levied. 15) In E.T.Sunup Vs C.A.N.S.S.Employees Association and another2, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “16. It has become a tendency with the government officers to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of court and try to take recourse to tone justification or other. This shows complete lack of grace in accepting the orders of the Court. This tendency of undermining the Court’s order cannot be countenanced.” 16) Accordingly, Contempt Case is allowed against respondent No.4 with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable to the petitioner and fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) payable to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P., Amaravati, within a period of four (04) weeks 2 (2004) 8 SCC 683 10 from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. In default, the petitioner shall undergo seven (07) days of Simple Imprisonment. 17) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. NINALA JAYASURYA,J Date:11.09.2026 Ssv Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1516 OF 2024 Date:11.09.2026. Ssv