K. Varun Kumar Reddy Vs S. Reddy Sekhar Reddy

K. VARUN KUMAR REDDY, S/O K. RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O 8/79, DSP BUNGLOW STREET, CHINTAPARTHI POST AND VILLAGE VAYALPAD MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶10

K. RAMI REDDY, S/O K. VASUDEVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O 8/79, DSP BUNGLOW STREET, CHINTAPARTHI POST AND VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶11

K. SUBRAMANYAM REDDY, S/O K. VASUDEVA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O 0PP. NLF SCHOOL, SBI COLONY, MADANAPALLE TOWN, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

S REDDY SEKHAR REDDY, EXECUTIVE OFFICER/PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, THE GRAM PANCHAYAT OF CHINTAPARTI VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶15

S VENKATARAMANA, S/O SREENIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O 8/86-A, DSP BUNGLOW STREET, CHINTAPARTHI POST AND VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶16

GADDAM LAKSHMINARAYANA, S/O VENKATASWAMI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 9/282, R.S ROAD, CHINTAPARTHI POST AND VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶17

K MAHESH, S/O SUBBARAYUDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O 9/265, R.S ROAD, CHINTAPARTHI POST AND VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶18

K RAMANA, S/O GANGANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O 8/81, DSP BUNGLOW STREET, CINTAPARTHI POST AND VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT

¶19

SOURAM SREENIVASULU, S/O SREERAMULU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O 8/80, DSP BUNGLOW STREET, CHINTAPARTHI POST AND VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶20

P KANTHARAJU, S/O PANDURANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O D.NO.8/40, BAZAR STREET, CHINTAPARTHI POST AND VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶21

P SWARNALATHA, W/O PANDURANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O D.NO.8/20, BAZAR STREET, CHINTAPARTHI POST AND VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶22

K CHANDRASEKAR ACHARI, S/O NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O 8/88, DSP BUNGLOW STREET, CHINTAPARTHI POST AND VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶23

S MANI, S/O S. ESWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O D.NO.8/82, DSP BUNGLOW STREET, CHINTAPARTHI POST AND VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶24

S VENKATARAMANA, S/O S. SREERAMULU, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 8/83, DSP BUNGLOW STREET, CHINTAPARTHI POST AND VILLAGE, VAYALPAD MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶25

...CONTEMNOR(S):

¶26

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 May be pleased to direct the notices to the respondents herein and punish the Respondents under Secs. 10 to 12 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for deliberate, intentional and willful violation of the orders of this Honble Court, Dt.22.08.2025 passed in W.P.No.3871 of 2019 and pass such

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶28

1.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

¶29

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

¶30

¶31

The Court made the following:

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶33

CONTEMPT CASE NO:3051 OF 2025

¶34

ORDER:

¶35

This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 22.08.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3871 of 2019.

¶36

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

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court while passing orders in W.P.No.3871 of 2019 held that the subject property is a private property of the unofficial respondents therein. He further submits that by holding that the subject property is the property of the unofficial respondents therein, this Court dismissed the claim of the petitioners therein, who are claiming that the unofficial respondents therein are proceeding with the construction by encroaching the public road. Having held by this Court that the subject property is a private property vide order dated 22.08.2025 and even after dismissal of the writ petition, the respondent authority laid a road through the petitioners land contrary to the findings of this Court. As such, the respondents unintentionally violated the orders of this Court and committed an act of contempt under Sections 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶38

On perusal of the orders of this Court, it is clear and categorical that the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners therein against the petitioners herein and

¶39

the official respondent herein was dismissed. For better understanding, the orders dated 22.08.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.3871 of 2019, is extracted hereunder:

¶40

“In view of the facts as stated above, the claim of the petitioners that the respondents are proceedings without there being any permission by occupying public road is contrary to the facts and intends to stall the construction of the unofficial respondents. However, the permission which was granted by the 7^th respondent on 25.09.2018 is not valid to proceed the construction as of now. As per Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and building) Rules 2002, any permission granted by the Gram Panchayat is valid for a period of one year only, if the respondents are intend to make any construction they should obtain permission afresh or they should get renewal to the permission which was already granted on 25.09.2018.

¶41

In view of foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.”

¶42

On perusal of the said order, there is no direction in favour of the respondents, directing the official respondents either to do the particular action or not to do any action. In the absence of any such direction in favour of the unofficial respondents therein, the unofficial respondents/ petitioners herein cannot institute any contempt case against the official respondents in this petition. For any grievance of the petitioners herein or for high handed occupation of the land of the petitioners, the petitioners herein are entitled to invoke appropriate jurisdiction either for compensation or for acquisition proceedings as entitled in accordance with law. Since the writ petition itself is dismissed, the contempt case cannot be invoked and the orders of this Court cannot be enforced against the respondents.

¶43

Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. However, the petitioners herein are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for appropriate relief if the petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed.

¶45

________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶46

21.01.2026 BSP

¶47

55

¶48

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶49

(closed)