Abburi Seshamma Vs a Rama Reddy

ABBURI SESHAMMA, W/O.LATE.VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O MANGAMUR VILLAGE, SANTANUTALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶10

P.SATYANARAYANA RAO, S/O.BULLABBAI, AGE.52 YEARS, OCC.ADVOCATE, R/O.ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P.)

¶11

P.VENKATESWARLU, S/O.PAPARAO, AGE.64 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO. 42-1-178 (7E), KAMMAPALEM, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P.

¶12

B.BALAKOTAMMA, W/O.RAMULU, AGE.68 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O.ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P.)

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

A RAMA REDDY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P.

¶16

SRI A RAJASEKHAR, TAHSILDAR, SANTANUTALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P.

¶17

...CONTEMNOR(S):

¶18

Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to to punish the Respondents for willfully and deliberately

¶19

2

¶20

disobeying the orders of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 12912 of 2012 dated 26.04.2012 and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶22

1.D.GAYATHRI

¶23

2.GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

¶24

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶25

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO: 305/2020

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶31

The present contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents are deliberately disobeying the interim order of this Court dated 26.04.2012 passed in W.P.No.12912 of 2012.

¶32

The respondents categorically stated in their counter-affidavit that the respondents are not interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property as alleged by the petitioner and they neither violated nor disobeyed the order of this Court.

¶33

In view of the clear and categorical assertions made by the respondents through their counter-affidavit, it cannot be construed that the respondents have deliberately disobeyed the orders of this Court.

¶34

On the other hand, pending the contempt case, the writ petition itself is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3, if they intend to take any action against the petitioner in respect of the subject property, they should follow due process of law.

¶35

In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition directing the respondents to follow due process of law and in view of the clear and categorical statement made by the respondents in counter-affidavit, they are not interfering with the

¶36

4

¶37

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner as alleged,

¶38

no further orders are necessary.

¶39