Dismissed¶36

Mamidi Dhanumjaya v. Bhima Rama Krishna Siva Prasad

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Nov 2025CC/94/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APHC010017622022 [3209]; High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati; C.C No.94 of 2022; Mamidi Dhanumjaya & others v. Tahsildar Dakkili Mandal (Bhima Rama Krishna Siva Prasad); alleged willful violation of status quo orders dated 01.10.2020 in W.P No.20680 of 2019; caution board erected/re-erected on assigned land, Marlagunta/Dakkili village, Survey lands dispute; reply-affidavit 25.02.2022; no re-joinder; Contempt of Courts Act; contempt case closed, no costs; Justice Ninala Jayasurya; 19.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioners: the Contempt Case was closed without examining the matter further, with 'No costs', and miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, were directed to stand closed; no punishment was imposed on the contemnor. ¶36

Mamidi Dhanumjaya Vs Bhima Rama Krishna Siva Prasad — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent/contemnor committed willful violation of the status quo orders dated 01.10.2020 passed in W.P No.20680 of 2019 by erecting a caution board in the property assigned to the petitioners, rendering him liable to punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶30

Court's answer

There was no dispute before the Court that status quo orders had been passed in the writ petition (W.P No.20680 of 2019).

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The respondent's account stood uncontroverted: the counter-affidavit asserted the caution board predated the writ orders, and the reply-affidavit dated 25.02.2022 specifically set out the circumstances of its re-erection; no re-joinder was filed denying these assertions.

¶35

Key takeaways

In view of the unrebutted reply-affidavit assertions, the Court was not inclined to examine the matter further and closed the Contempt Case, directing that no costs be paid and that miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

C.C. No. 94 of 2022 — Mamidi Dhanumjaya and four others v. Bhima Rama Krishna Siva Prasad, Tahsildar, Dakkili Mandal (SPSR Nellore District): The petitioners alleged willful violation by the Tahsildar of the status quo orders in W.P No.20680 of 2019 (granted 20.12.2019, extended 01.10.2020) through erection of a caution board on land assigned to them, and sought punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. The respondent countered that the caution board was erected even before the writ orders, and a reply-affidavit dated 25.02.2022 explained its re-erection after villagers reported its removal; no re-joinder denied these specific assertions. Holding there was no dispute on the passing of the status quo orders and that the respondent's account went unrebutted, Justice Ninala Jayasurya declined to examine the matter further, closed the contempt case with no costs, and ordered pending miscellaneous petitions to stand closed. Order dated 19.11.2025.

¶1

APHC010017622022

¶2

[3209]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 94/2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

MAMIDI DHANUMJAYA, 5/0 GOPALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O MARLAGUNTA VILLAGE, DAKKILI MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶10

MAMIDI GIRIJA, W/O PALAMINETRA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O MARLAGUNTA, DAKKILI VILLAGE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶11

MAMIDI SRINIVASULU, S/O PULLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, CULTIVATION, RIO MARLAGUNTA, DAKKILI VILLAGE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶12

MAMIDI ESWARAMMA, W/O GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O MARLAGUNTA, DAKKILI VILLAGE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶13

MAMIDI RAJENDRA, S/O GOPALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O MARLAGUNTA, DAKKILI VILLAGE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶14

...PETITIONER(S)

¶15

AND

¶16

BHIMA RAMA KRISHNA SIVA PRASAD, The Tahsildar, Aged about 58 years, Tahsildar Office, Dakkili Mandal, Dakkili, SPSR Nellore District, ...Respondent/Contemnor

¶17

...CONTEMNOR

¶18

NJS,J C.C No.94 of 2022

¶19

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶21

1.CHANDRA SEKHAR ILAPAKURTI

¶22

Counsel for the Contemnor:

¶23

1.P SUBASH

¶24

NJS,J C.C No.94 of 2022

¶25

¶26

The Court made the following Order:

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P Subash, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶28

The present contempt case is filed alleging willful violation of the orders dated 01.10.2020 in W.P No.20680 of 2019.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that a learned Judge of this Court, initially granted an order of status quo on 20.12.2019 and the same was extended subsequently by an order dated 01.10.2020.

¶30

The respondent in violation of the status quo orders, erected the caution board in the property assigned to the petitioners and therefore, the respondents are liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.

¶31

On the other hand, Mr. P Subash, learned counsel representing the respondent, made submissions with reference to the averments made in the reply-affidavit filed by the respondent. He submits that there are disputes between the groups in the village in respect of the lands situated in Survey No.317 and in fact, as specifically asserted in the counter-affidavit, even prior to passing of the orders in W.P No.20680 of 2019, a caution board was erected to protect the vacant Government land. He submits that as the some of the villagers have brought to the notice of the respondent that the petitioners have removed the caution board, the same was re-erected. He submits that in view of the specific averments made in the reply-affidavit, the allegations of willful violation of the orders passed in W.P No.20680 of 2018 are absolutely untrue and untenable. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel urges for dismissal of the contempt case.

¶32

This Court has considered the submissions made. There is no dispute about the passing of status quo orders in the writ petition referred to above. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent had specifically stated that caution board

¶33

NJS,J C.C No.94 of 2022

¶34

¶35

was erected even before the orders in W.P No.20680 of 2019 were passed. Specific assertions were made regarding the circumstances in the replyaffidavit filed as long back as on 25.02.2022 under which the caution board was re-erected. No re-joinder is filed denying the specific assertions made in the reply-affidavit.

¶36

In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to examine the matter further and the Contempt Case is closed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶37

__________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶38

Date:19.11.2025 Ksj

Mamidi Dhanumjaya v. Bhima Rama Krishna Siva Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamidi Dhanumjaya v. Bhima Rama Krishna Siva Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Guravamma Vs the State of Ap

Pottangi Lakshmamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. R.Venakteswaramma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Naseema Begum and 5 Others Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and 3 others

Mamidi Dhanumjaya Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jai Bheem Sankshema Sangam, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh