Dismissed¶29

Muchumarri Ramasubba Reddy, v. Sri. Vandadi Gangaiah

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Apr 2025CC/411/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APHC Contempt Case 411/2025 dismissed by Justice Ravi Cheemalapati (HC Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, 03.04.2025); alleged willful disobedience of orders dated 12.09.2024 in W.P.No.36192 of 2022; petitioner Muchumarri Ramasubba Reddy; contemnors Sri Vandadi Gangaiah and Others; Tahsildar; possession of property; interference by unofficial respondents; remedy lies in competent Civil Court, not Contempt Court; Contempt of Courts Act 1971 Sections 10 to 12; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No specific direction was issued to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 restraining them from interfering with the petitioner's possession; the Court observed that the petitioner was in possession of the property and that the Tahsildar, instead of issuing the impugned proceedings, ought to have directed the parties to the civil Court. ¶27

Muchumarri Ramasubba Reddy, Vs Sri. Vandadi Gangaiah — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos. 2 & 3 (the contemnors) are liable to punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act for willfully disobeying the orders dated 12.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.36192 of 2022 by highhandedly interfering with the petitioner's property. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

¶27

Ratio / Principle

A grievance against interference by the unofficial respondents must be pursued before the competent Civil Court; the Contempt Court is not a platform where such a grievance can be ventilated, and accordingly the contempt case is liable to be dismissed.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Case No. 411/2025 (APHC010070262025), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, 03.04.2025 — Muchumarri Ramasubba Reddy (petitioner) v. Sri Vandadi Gangaiah and Others (contemnors). Filed under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging willful disobedience of the orders dated 12.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.36192 of 2022, on the ground that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 were highhandedly interfering with the petitioner's property. The Court held that the writ orders contained no specific direction to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 not to interfere with the petitioner's possession — the Court having observed in the writ petition that the petitioner was in possession and that the Tahsildar ought to have directed the parties to the civil Court — and that any grievance against interference by unofficial respondents must be ventilated before the competent Civil Court, the Contempt Court not being a platform for such grievances. Contempt Case dismissed; no order as to costs.

¶1

[3332]

¶2

APHC010070262025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

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

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶8

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 411/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

Muchumarri Ramasubba Reddy,

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Sri Vandadi Gangaiah and Others

¶14

...CONTEMNOR(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.DODDAKA HARSHA VARDHAN

¶17

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶18

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Contempt Case is filed under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for the willful disobedience of the orders dated 12.09.2024 passed in W.P.No.36192 of 2022.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there is specific

¶23

direction of this Court to respondent Nos.2 & 3, they are highhandedly interfering with the petitioners property, as such, they are liable for punishment

¶24

under the contempt of the Court Act, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that there is no such direction to the respondent Nos.2 & 3 not to interfere with the petitioners possession, however, if at all the petitioner has any grievance with the interference of the respondent Nos.2 & 3, he has to ventilate his grievance before appropriate forum. This Court cannot adjudicate the same under Contempt of Courts Act.

¶26

Perused the record.

¶27

This Court has categorically observed that since the proceedings impugned in writ petition shows that the petitioner is in possession of the property and hence the Tahsildar instead of issuing impugned proceedings ought to have directed the parties to go to civil Court.

¶28

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, if the petitioner has any grievance against the interference of the unofficial respondents, he has to approach competent Civil Court but the Contempt Court is not a platform where he can ventilate his grievance, as such, the contempt case is liable to be dismissed.

¶29

Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

¶31

closed.

¶32

_____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶33

Date: 03^rd April, 2025 RKS

Muchumarri Ramasubba Reddy, v. Sri. Vandadi Gangaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muchumarri Ramasubba Reddy, v. Sri. Vandadi Gangaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L. Padmanabha Prasad Vs Govt. of A.P.

Nallabothula Lakshmi, Vs G. Sai Prasad, I.A.S.

Kuchipudi Usha Rani, Vs P. Naga Sailaja

C.Mohan Babu, Chittoor District. Vs Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Chittoor-Ii & Another

Janapala Venkateswara Reddy Vs Sri Pradyumna Ps, IAS

Reddi Ramachandra Rao @ Reddi Venkata Ramachandra Rao Vs B R Ambadhkar