Dismissed¶61

Motumarri Raghava Rao v. Sri Prakhar Jain IAS

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Apr 2025CC/200/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: contempt of courts; wilful disobedience of interim order; Sections 10 to 12 Contempt of Courts Act 1971; I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.4707 of 2024; order dated 22.02.2024; mutation proceedings Rc.No.DT/167/2022 dated 20.01.2024; Tahsildar Chinnaganjam; Joint Collector Bapatla; dispute register; sale deed dated 07.03.2024; Sub-Registrar Office Narasaraopet; representations dated 02.04.2024, 08.04.2024, 16.05.2024; Eoffice No.16828/2025-D3 dated 12.02.2025; liberty to question consequential mutation before appropriate forum; contempt case dismissed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Contempt Case dismissed; petitioners at liberty to question the consequential mutation before the appropriate forum in accordance with law; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, in the Contempt Case stand closed. ¶61

Motumarri Raghava Rao Vs Sri Prakhar Jain IAS — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court dated 22.02.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.4707 of 2024 (including non-entry of the subject lands in the dispute register), warranting punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

The unofficial respondents had already executed the sale deed in favour of the third party on 07.03.2024, and the petitioners filed their representation before the Tahsildar to place the subject lands in the dispute register only on 02.04.2024, i.e., after completion of registration at Sub-Registrar Office, Narasaraopet.

¶60

Key takeaways

Since the sale deed preceded the petitioners' representation, this Court cannot find fault with the respondents and is not inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against them.ratio¶60
The Contempt Case is dismissed; however, the petitioners are at liberty to question the consequential mutation before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.ratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Case No. 200 of 2025, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Ravi Cheemalapati J., decided 17.04.2025): Petitioners sought punishment of respondent-officials (Joint Collector & Additional District Magistrate, Bapatla; Revenue Divisional Officer, Chirala; Tahsildars of Chinnaganjam/Vetapalem) and private respondents under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for alleged wilful disobedience of the Court's order dated 22.02.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in W.P.No.4707 of 2024, which had stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the Tahsildar's mutation proceedings (Rc.No.DT/167/2022, dated 20.01.2024) and restrained the petitioners from creating third party interest. Held: the unofficial respondents had already executed a sale deed in favour of a third party on 07.03.2024, whereas the petitioners' representations (02.04.2024, 08.04.2024, 16.05.2024) seeking entry of the subject lands in the dispute register were made only after completion of registration at Sub-Registrar Office, Narasaraopet; the Joint Collector, Bapatla subsequently ordered (Eoffice No.16828/2025-D3, dated 12.02.2025) placement of the lands in the dispute register. Finding no fault with the respondents, the Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings, dismissed the Contempt Case, left the petitioners at liberty to question the consequential mutation before the appropriate forum in accordance with law, and made no order as to costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl,. THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶4

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 200 OF 2025

¶5

Contempt Case filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt^ofCourtsAct 1971, to punish the Contemners under Sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of Court Act, for deliberately violating the orders of this Hon'ble Court passed in lA.No. 1 of 2024 in WP.No. 4707 of 2024 dated 22.02.2024.

¶6

Between:

¶7

Motumarri Raghava Rao, S/o. Late Motumarri Venkata Subba Rao, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.46-61, Main Road, Peddaganjam Village, Chinna Ganjam Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶8

Motumarri Veera Raghava Rao, S/o. Late Motumarri Raghava Rao, Aged about 49 years Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Pedda Ganjam Village, China Ganjam Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶9

Motumarri Rajesh Babu, S/o. Late Rosaiah, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. D.No.4-211-1, Avula Doddi Kotha Gollapalem, China Ganjam Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶10

Motumarri Subramanyam, S/o. Late Rosaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. D.No.58-21, Avula Doddi Kotha Gollapalem, China Ganjam Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

Sri Prakhar Jain IAS, S/o. not known to Petitioner Aged Major, Occ;

¶14

Working i as Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Bapatia District, Bapatia (erstwhile Prakasam District).

¶15

2-“Sri.T. Chandra Shekar Naidu, S/o.

¶16

'r A not known to Petitioner, Aged Major, Occ: Working as Revenue Divisional Officer, Chirala Division, Chirala,

¶17

Bapatia District.

¶18

-n-

¶19

Sri.G V Gunta Prabhakar Rao, S/o. not known to Petitioner, Aged Major,

¶20

Occ: Working as Tahsildar, Chinnaganjam Mandal, Chinnaganjam,

¶21

Bapatia District.

¶22

P. Parvathi, D/o. not known to the Petitioner, Aged Major, Occ: Tahsildar, Chinaganjam Mandal, Chinaganjam, Bapatia District (Presently Working as Tahsildar, Vetapalem Mandal Bapatia District)

¶23

M/s. Bommisetty Agro Farms Private Limited Rep. by Smt. Bommisetty

¶24

Sandhya Rani, W/o. Late Ramanadha Rao, Aged about 57 years, R/o.

¶25

D.No.35-3-69(371), Bhagyanagar, 4th Line, Ongole Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶26

Sri. Bommisetty Santhosh Ganesh Deepak, S/o. Late Ramanadha Rao Aged about 37 years, R/o. D.No.35-3-69(371), Bhagyanagar, 4th Line, Ongole Town and Mandal, Prakasam District

¶27

Sri. Bommisetty Santhosh Mallikharjuna Rao, S/o. Late Ramanadha Rao Aged about 32 years R/o. D.No.35-3-69(371), Bhagyanagar 4th Line, Ongole Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶28

...CONTEMNORS

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s PINNINTI KEERTI Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI KM KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2, & 4 to 7: None Appeared The Court made the following:

^0*

APHC010026222025

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

¶34

[3332]

¶35

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶36

PRESENT

¶37

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶38

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 200/2025

¶39

Between:

¶40

Motumarri Raghava Rao and others

¶41

...PETITIONER(S)

¶42

AND

¶43

Sri Prakhar Jain I.A.S and others ...CONTEMNOR(S)

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶45

1.PINNINTI KEERTI

¶46

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶47

1.KM KRISHNA REDDY

¶48

¶49

The Court made the following order:

¶50

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 22.02.2024 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2024 in Writ Petition No.4707 of 2024.

¶51

¶52

Heard Sri N.Krishna Sai, learned counsel representing^Ms.P.Keerti learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioners, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that questioning the mutation proceedings issued by the 4'*^ respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.DT/167/2022 dated 20.01.2024 with regard to subject property in the name of unofficial respondents, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.4707^{of2024andthisCourt} vide order dated 22.02.2024 in I.A.No.1 of 2024 stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the order passed by 4^'' respondent -Tahsildar dated 20.01.2024, pending further orders and the petitioners are also directed not to create any third party interest. He further submitted that the said orders were repeatedly brought to the notice of the contemners through oral and written representations dated 02.04.2024, 08.04.2024 and 16.05.2024 by the petitioners and requested them that the subject lands be placed in the dispute register to prevent unauthorized transactions, as the unofficial respondents were attempting to alienate the subject lands. In spite of the said representations, the official respondents have not put the subject property in dispute register. The respondents have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders of this Court dated 22.02.2024. Hence, prayed to punish the respondent under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt^ofCourtsAct.

¶54

¶55

for the 4, On the other hand, Sri K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel respondents while reiterating the contents of the reply^{affidavitoftheTahsildar} contended that the unofficial respondents have executed^{saledeedsinfavour} of third party on 07.03.2024 in Sub-Registrar Office,^{Narasaraopet,whereas} the petitioners have filed representation before the^{Tahsildar,Chinnaganjam} i.e. after on 02.04.2024 to place the subject lands in dispute register completion of registration at Sub-Registrar Office,^{Narasaraopet.Hefurther} submitted that in obedience to the order of this Court,^{theTahsildarhasnot} taken any further action in respect of the order passed^{bytheTahsildar,} Chinnaganjam in Rc.DT/167/2022, dated 20.01.2024. He^{furthersubmitted}

¶56

that as the subject lands are in dispute, proposals^{weresubmittedtotheJoint} Collector, Bapatla to place the subject lands in dispute^{registertopreventthe} 3'^'^ party registrations and also to prevent further^{mutationsandaccordingly} the Joint Collector, Bapatla has passed orders in Eoffice^{No.16828/2025-D3} dated 12.02.2025 directing the Tahsildar, Chinnaganjam^{toplacethesubject} lands in dispute register and accordingly the subject^landsare in dispute register.

¶57

Perused the records and considered the submissions^{madebylearned} counsel for the parties. 6. Perusal of the record would show that the petitioners filed representations dated 02.04.2024 and 08.04.2024 to^{theTahsildartoplace} the subject lands under dispute register. By that time,^{mutationhasbeen}

¶58

i<3r-

¶59

taken place in favour of the unofficial respondents.^{Thepetitionersthemselves'} stated in the affidavit that they made representations dated 02.04.2024, 08.04.2024 and 16.05.2024 to the official respondents to put the subject land in dispute register, as the unofficial respondents^{wereattemptedtoalienate} the subject lands in favour of third parties.

¶60

In view of the above and taking the submissions of^{boththelearned} counsel into consideration, since the unofficial respondents have executed sale deed in favour of third party on 07.03.2024 and the petitioners filed representation before the Tahsildar to place the subject lands in dispute register on 02.04.2024 which is after completion of registration at SubRegistrar Office, Narasaraopet, this Court cannot find fault with the respondents. Hence, this Court is not inclined to initiate contempt proceedings against the respondents.

¶61

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to question the consequential mutation before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. There shall^{benoorderastocosts.}

¶62

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Contempt Case, shall stand closed.

¶63

¶64

SD/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

Sri Prakhar Jain IAS, S/o. not known to Petitioner,^Aged Major, Occ: Working as Joint Collector and Additional District Magistrate, Bapatia District, Bapatia (erstwhile Prakasam District).

¶69

Sri.T. Chandra Shekar Naidu, S/o. not known to Petitioner, Aged Major, Occ: Working as Revenue Divisional Officer, Chirala Division, Chirala, Bapatia District.

¶70

Sri.G V Gunta Prabhakar Rao, S/o. not known to Petitioner, Aged Major,

¶71

Occ; Working as Tahsildar, Chinnaganjam Mandal, Chinnaganjam,

¶72

Bapatia District.

¶73

P. Parvathi, D/o. not known to the Petitioner Aged Major, Occ; Tahsildar,

¶74

Chinaganjam Mlandal, Chinaganjam, Bapatia District (Presently Working

¶75

as Tahsildar, Vetapalem Mandal Bapatia District)

¶76

M/s. Bommisetty Agro Farms Private Limited, Rep. by Smt. Bommisetty Sandhya Rani, W/o. Late Ramanadha Rao Aged about 57 years, R/o. D.No.35-3-69(371), Bhagyanagar, 4th Line, Ongole Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶77

Sri. Bommisetty Santhosh Ganesh Deepak, S/o. Late Ramanadha Rao Aged about 37 years, R/o. D.No.35-3-69(371) Bhagyanagar, 4th Line Ongole Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶78

Sri. Bommisetty Santhosh Mallikharjuna Rao, S/o. Late Ramanadha Rao, Aged about 32 years R/o. D.No.35-3-69(371), Bhagyanaga r, 4th Line, Ongole Town and Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶79