M Kavali Ramayya Naidu Vs Nisanth Kumar — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

M Kavali Ramayya Naidu Vs Nisanth Kumar — Contempt of Court | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

APHC010035982026

[3208]

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

TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH CONTEMPT CASE NO: 390/2026

Between:

M KAVALI RAMAYYA NAIDU, S/O LATE KAVALI CHINNAYYA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O MAJARA DOOREVANDLAPALLI, MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K.V.PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 2.

KAVALI NAGARJUNA NAIDU, S/O KAVALI RAMAYYA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE R/O MAJARA DOOREVANDLAPALLI, MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K.V PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

KAVALI VENKATRAMANA, S/O LATE CHINNAYYA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O MAJARA DOOREVANDLAPALLI, MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K.V.PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

KAVALI MALLIKARJUNA, S/O K VENKATRAMANA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O MAJARA DOOREVANDLAPALLI, MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K.V PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

NISANTH KUMAR, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

SRINIVAS, THE REVNUE DIVISIOINAL OFFICER, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 3.

SRI C NARENDRA KUMAR, THE TAHSILDAR, K.V. PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT

DURA NARAYANA NAIDU, S/O LATE YERRAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O DOOREVANDLAPALLI, MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K.V PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

DURA NAGAPPA, S/O LATE YERRAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OEC AGRICULTURE R/O DOOREVANDLAPALLI, MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K.V PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

DURA VENKATAPPA, S/O LATE YERRAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O DOOREVANDLAPALLI, MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K.V PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRIET

DURA MALLAIAH, S/O LATE YERRAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O DOOREVANDLAPALLI, MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K.V PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

DURA BHASKARA, S/O LATE YERRAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O DOOREVANDLAPALLI, MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K V PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

KAVALI SEKHARA, S/O LATE CHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O DOOREVANDLAPALLI, MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K.V PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

KAVALI RAJAGOPAL, S/O LATE CHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O DOOREVANDLAPALLI, MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K V PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRIET.

PUJARI NAGARAJA, S/O PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O DOOREVANDLAPALLI, MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K.V PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

MARRIPATI VENKATRAMANA, S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O BALAPPAGARIPALLI, H/O GYARAMPALLI, K V PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

MARRIPATI RAJENDRA, S/O VENKATRAMANA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O BALAPPAGARIPALLI, H/O GYARAMPALLI, K V PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

MARRIPATI RAMESH, S/O VENKATRAMANA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O BALAPPAGARIPALLI, H/O GYARAMPALLI, K V PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

MARRIPATI PAPAIAH, S/O LATE MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O BALAPPAGARIPALLI, H/O GYARAMPALLI, K V PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

...CONTEMNOR(S):

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 direct the notices to the respondents herein and punish the Respondents under section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for deliberate, intentional and willful violation of the orders of this Hon’ble Court dated 14.11.2025 in WP.No.31765 of 2025 and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.VALLEPU REDDY NIKHIL GANESH

Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

1.SUSHMA YAGANTI

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

ORDER:

This Contempt Case has been filed by the petitioner herein in violation of the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.31765 of 2025 dated 14.11.2025.

On perusal, this Court finds that while dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court made the following observations:

<6. In the said circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal under Section 10(i) of the Act within the statutory period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till filing of the said appeal, the respondent authorities are directed not to interfere and not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land without following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.=

This Contempt Case was filed on the ground that despite a direction to

the respondents not to interfere, the 4^th respondent herein-Tahsildar, K.V.Palle, has obstructed the petitioner while the petitioner was erecting the compound fence.

Today, on instructions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause of action in this Contempt Case does not survive as the petitioners have already approached appellate authority as directed by this Court.

Recording the said submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners,

this Contempt Case is closed . There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 03.03.2026 M K K

254

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Contempt Case No.390 of 2026

Dated: 03.03.2026

M K K