Vanjivakam Balakrishna Vs Dr S Venkateswar IAS

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARULU NIMMAGADDA CONTEMPT CASE NO.569 OF 2025

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

The present contempt case is filed for wilful violation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.21808 of 2024 dated 30.09.2024.

¶4

In W.P.No.21808 of 2024 dated 30.09.2024, this Hon’ble Court passed the order, which reads as follows:

¶5

“7. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject properties as stated herein without following due procedure as contemplated.”

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even though this Hon’ble Court specifically directed the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the petitioner, acquired the property by way of alienation through house

¶7

NV,J CC.No.569 of 2025

¶8

2

¶9

site patta vide DKt 266/1990, confirming the possession and construction of the house in the year 2022, the petitioner was granted title deed on 17.01.2022. Even though the petitioner is vested with valid rights, title and possession and even after orders passed by this Court, the respondents are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and dug a small canal through the land of the petitioner, which is nothing but flouting the orders of this Court. Hence, the respondents are liable for punishment under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶10

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the Tahsildar, Yerpedu Mandal, Tirupati District (Respondent No. 3), stating that the respondents have not interfered with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. It is contended that the alleged interference, namely the erection of a board, pertains to land in Survey No. 109/2 and not to Survey No. 109/6, where the petitioner’s property is situated. The petitioner’s property, measuring an extent of 143.8889 square yards in Survey No. 109/6 of Kandadu Village, Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District, is held under a valid title deed and corresponds to D. No. 1-66.

¶11

NV,J CC.No.569 of 2025

¶12

3

¶13

Furthermore, even as reflected in the photographs filed along with the reply affidavit to the counter affidavit, the petitioner’s house property remains intact. The alleged canal was dug only in open land and does not affect the petitioner’s property. Therefore, there is no violation or disobedience of the orders passed by this Court on the part of the respondents.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record.

¶15

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner’s house remains intact and that the respondents have neither interfered with the petitioner’s property nor dispossessed the petitioner from the house property. The assignment made by the respondents in favour of the petitioner has been acknowledged by them, and their contention of non-interference is substantiated by the reply affidavit filed by the Tahsildar/Respondent No.3 herein. It is further observed that, apart from making a bold allegation that the respondents have flouted the orders of this Court,

¶16

the petitioner has failed to establish any material regarding alleged interference with the petitioner’s property by the respondents, which amounts to violation of the Court’s orders with respect to the property

¶17

NV,J CC.No.569 of 2025

¶18

4

¶19

in question. In the absence of any material demonstrating violation or disobedience of the orders of this Court, the respondents cannot be prosecuted under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

¶20

It is well settled law that, while exercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, this Court must evaluate the evidence in a strict manner. In the present case, there is no such evidence to come to an opinion that the respondents have violated or flouted the orders of this Court.

¶21

In the result, contempt case is closed. No costs.

¶22

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed.

¶23

JUSTICE VENKATESWARULU NIMMAGADDA

¶24

Date:06.04.2026

¶25

SP

Vanjivakam Balakrishna v. Dr S Venkateswar IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanjivakam Balakrishna v. Dr S Venkateswar IAS

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

M v Bhuvaneswari Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Padavala Pavani Vs the State of Ap

V. Sreenivasulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gundubogula Venkateshwar Rao Vs Sri. G.Sai Prasad, IAS

Smt. Byri Vijayalakshmi, Vs K. Lalitha Bai

M.N.v.Rajesh Vs Sri S.Dilli Rao,Ias