Ruttala Venkata Rao Vs K.Kanna Babu

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶5

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1866 OF 2022

¶6

Contempt case under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of^CourtsAct 1971 to punish the respondents herein for wilful disobedience of the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 07.10.2021 passed in WP^{N0.22719of2021}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ruttala Venkata Rao, S/o Late Narayana, Aged about 58 years, R/o H.no. 326B Sector 8, Ukkunagaram Steel Plant, Visakhapatnam.

¶9

Ruttala Krishna Murthy, S/o Late Narayan, Aged about 50 years, R/o H.no. 3145/3/49, Road No.1 Pratap Enclave, SLN Colony, Chingicharla, Hyderabad.

¶10

Ruttala Seshagiri Rao,, S/o Late Narayana, Aged about 45 years, R/o H.no. 8-144, Venkateswaranagar Colony, Malkarjgiri, Hyderabad.

¶11

...Petitioners/petitioners

¶12

AND

¶13

Sri K.Kanna Babu, Principal Secretary(Revenue) cum^Relief Commissioner, Secretariat,Velagapudi, Amravati, AP.

¶14

Sri Rattan shetti Ravi Subhash, IAS

¶15

The District Collectbr,Collector office, Visakapatnam^District.

¶16

Sri Ronanki Govinda Rao, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam, Visakapatnam District.

¶17

Smt G.Rani Ammaji, The Tahsildar, Makavarapalem^Mandal Visakapatnam District.

¶18

Sri.Narendra babu, The Mandal Revenue Inspector, Makavarapalem Mandal, Visakapatnam District.

¶19

...Contemnors/Respondents

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioners : Smt K Aruna

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI Nagaraju Pullagura

¶22

SRI G L NARASIMHA REDDY

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

APHC010287472022

¶25

[3332]

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶27

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶28

PRESENT

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶30

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1866/2022

¶31

Between:

¶32

Ruttala Venkata Rao and others ...PETITIONER(S) AND K Kanna Babu and others ...CONTEMNOR(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.KARUNA

¶33

...PETITIONER(S)

¶34

AND Kanna Babu and others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.KARUNA Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1.NAGARAJU PULLAGURA 2.NARASIMHA REDDY. G . L

¶35

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶36

The Court made the following order:

¶37

This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents for willful disobedience of the order dated 07.10.2021 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.22719 of 2021. 2. Heard Smt K.Aruna, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Nagaraju Pullagura, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri G.L.Narsimha Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶38

f I
X

¶39

2

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that this Court passed order in Writ Petition No.22719 of 2021 directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioners representation dated 19.07.2021 in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. On receipt of the said order the petitioners made a representation along with the^{ordertotheauthoritiesin} the month of August, 2021. Thereafter they personally^{visitedtheofficeofthe} authorities and made representations for making corrections in revenue records, but till today no action has been taken by^{theauthorities.} He further submitted that the petitioners got issued a legal notice by registered post for implementing the orders of the Court, but till today the respondents had not taken any steps in that regard, which amounts to willful^{disobedienceofthe} order of this Court, hence, the respondent authorities are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶41

Sri G.L.Narsimha Reddy, learned counsel for respondent^Nos.2to 5 while reiterating the contents of the counter affidavits of respondent Nos.2 to 4 contended that in obedience to the orders of this Court, the Tahsildar, Makavarapalem has issued Endorsement dated 06.06.2022 to the petitioners as the request for de-notification of subject land from the list of prohibited lands notified under Section 22(A) cannot be considered. Further the request of the petitioners for de-notification of the subject^{landfordeletionfrom22-A} list was rejected vide complaint No.7369/2022/L2-dated^29.09.2022 of the District Collector, Anakapalli, as the petitioners are not in possession of the

¶42

subject land and the same is under the control of Panchayat^{RajDepartment} and it is being used as ‘Shandy place’ for public purpose^{since1963-64.The} said proceedings were served on the petitioners through^{RPADon08.08.2024} and the same was acknowledged by the petitioners on 09.08.2024. He further submitted that the orders of this Court have duly been^{compliedwith.} Hence, prayed to dismiss the Contempt Case.

¶43

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners while^{reiteratingthecontents} affidavit contended that the Tahsildar’s endorsement^thatthe of the reply request for de-notification of the schedule land from^{thelistofProhibitedlands} notified under Section 22A cannot be considered with^anante-date i.e. , on 06.06.2022 and the consequential rejection order of^the District Collector dated 29.09.2022 was never served on the petitioners.^{Hefurthersubmitted} that the rejection order was passed without application^{ofmindandonlytoget} over the contempt proceeding and to start another round^{oflitigation.He} further submitted that the petitioners have questioned the^{orderspassedby} the respondents by filing independent Writ Petitions. Since^{therespondents} have not complied with the orders in true spirit, they^{areliableforpunishment} and accordingly prayed to allow the Contempt Case.

¶44

Respondent No.2 filed additional affidavit stating^{thatthethenTahsildar} was directed by him to serve the order on the petitioners^{immediately,butlater} it came to know that the copy of order were not served on the^{petitionersand} when enquired the same, the then Tahsildar. Makavarapalem^hassubmitted his explanation stating that due to administrative^{exigenciessuchasResurvey}

¶45

work, he could not follow up the action taken in this^regard. Soon after he came to know about the same, speaking order was served^{thoughregistered} post in the month of August 2024. He further submitted^{thatthereasonsfor} delay in this regard are not at all intentional, but completely due to administrative exigencies only and the delay was happened^{inadvertently,} beyond that, there is no willful disobedience of the order of this Court, however rendered unconditional apology for the inconvenience^causeddueto them and prayed to exonerate the respondents/contemnors from the Contempt Case.

¶46

Perused the record and considered the submissions made^bylearned counsel for the respective parties.

¶47

of 2021 8. This Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition No.22719 passed the following order dated 07.10.2021;

¶48

“In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing respondents to dispose of the representation dated 19.07.2021 submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, within four (4) weeks from the^{dateofreceipt} of copy of this order”; 9. It is not in dispute that respondent authorities have^{adjudicatedthe} petitioners’ representation and passed orders, however^{withcertaindelay.The} authorities have also sent the said copy of the order^{tothepetitionerswith} further delay. Perusal of the counter and the submissions^{madebylearned}

¶49

-i=5

¶50

counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied with the reasons explained by the respondents for the delay.

¶51

Taking the submissions of both the learned counsel and the contents of the counter affidavits of the respondents into consideration, as the petitioners have contended that they have already questioned the orders passed by the respondents by filing independent cases, this Court feels it appropriate that this Contempt is liable to be dismissed, as there is no willful disobedience as alleged by the petitioners.

¶52