SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 1229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.
Nellore Sudhakar and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Sri V. Seenaiah – Contemnor
Contempt Case No. 827 of 2018
Decided On : 16-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Madhava Rao Nalluri, Bindu Vegiraju
For the Contemnor : Sudhir Mattegunta

Contempt of Court arises when a party fails to comply with court orders, violating the principles of natural justice and due process.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 215 - Contempt of Court - The Court held the Panchayat Secretary guilty of contempt for violating its order dated 08.03.2018 by demolishing petitioners' properties without notice, despite an ongoing status quo order from prior litigation - The court emphasized that being a party to previous proceedings, the Respondent had a duty to inform the Writ Petitioners before taking such action. The demolition was characterized as high-handedness, violating the principles of natural justice. (Paras 1, 3, 6, 10, 14, 16)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioners filed a contempt petition claiming that the Panchayat Secretary unlawfully demolished their houses on 19.03.2018, despite the High Court not issuing explicit directions for such action under its earlier orders, including a status quo order regarding property disputes. Tensions arose after the Unofficial Respondent sought encroachment removal through a writ petition without involving the Petitioners, leading to subsequent collusion against them. (Paras 3, 5, 8, 14)

Findings of Court:
The Court found the Respondent guilty of contempt due to disregard for its prior orders and failure to maintain proper procedure, resulting in unauthorized demolition and subsequent homelessness for the Petitioners. The Court indicated the necessity for the Respondent to restore the status quo failed. (Paras 14-16)

Issues: The central issues were whether the Respondent violated the court's previous order and acted lawfully concerning the petitioners, who were not properly notified or given the chance to contest the allegations against them. (Paras 6, 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the essential requirement of due process, stating that the Respondent had an obligation to engage with the Petitioners transparently before demolition and noted that absence of such procedure invalidated of actions taken. (Paras 14-16)

Result: The Contemnor was sentenced to two months of civil imprisonment and ordered to restore the properties and pay costs to the Writ Petitioners. (Paras 16-17)

Table of Content
1. contempt case initiated against panchayat secretary for violating court order. (Para 2 , 3)
2. writ petitioners argue collusion and lack of due process. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. demolition conducted contrary to court directions. (Para 8 , 9)
4. court examines prior orders and respondent's actions. (Para 11 , 12)
5. contemnor found guilty, restitution ordered. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. court communicates order for compliance. (Para 17)

ORDER :

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.

Heard Sri N. Madhava Rao, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri M. Sudheer, learned Counsel for the sole Respondent/Contemnor.

2. The present Contempt Case is filed by two Writ Petitioners (Writ Petitioner Nos.1 & 4) out of the four Writ Petitioners complaining of violation of the Order of this Court dated 08.03.2018 in W.P.No.7251 of 2018.

Factual background

3. Factual background emanating from the Writ Petition as well as present Contempt Case is that the Panchayat Secretary of Brahmadevam Gram Panchayat, Nellore District (Respondent No.5 in the Writ Petition), who has been arrayed as sole Respondent in the present Contempt Case, had issued Proceeding bearing Rc.No./Court Cases/2016 dated 26.02.2018, directing the four Writ Petitioners to remove the alleged encroachments purporting to act as per the Order of this Court dated 05.12.2017 in W.P.No.40019 of 2017; that the Writ Petitioners contended that the Writ Petitioner No.4 had filed O.S.No.383 of 2017 against one Sri M. Chenchaiah before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore seeking Permanent Injunction against the Panchayat Secretary as well as Sri M. Chenchaiah (Respondent Nos.5 & 6 in the Writ Petition); that the Writ Petitioner No.4 had also filed I.A.No.399 of 2017 in O.S.No.383 of 2017, wherein the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nellore was pleased to pass an Interim Order of Status-quo to be maintained on 09.08.2017 and the same was extended from time to time; therefore, the Interim Order of Status-quo in I.A.No.399 of 2017 in O.S.No.383 of 2017 is still subsisting and operating against the Panchayat Secretary (Respondent No.5) and Unofficial Respondent No.6 namely Sri M. Chenchaiah; that the Unofficial Respondent No.6 in the Writ Petition secured an ex-parte Order in W.P.No.40019 of 2017 on 05.12.2017, behind their back without impleading the Writ Petitioners, which is a non-specific direction against the Official Respondents to consider his Representation dated 25.01.2016 within a period of three months; that the said Representation submitted by the Unofficial Respondent No.6 (Sri Chenchaiah) is for removal of encroachments in the Panchayat land in R.S.No.665; and that the Official Respondent No.5 had colluded with Unofficial Respondent No.6 and got issued the Proceeding on 26.02.2018 for evicting the Writ Petitioners herein, which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.7251 of 2018.

4. The facts on record would further indicate that the above averments were specifically pleaded by the Writ Petitioners in Para Nos.5 & 6 of the Affidavit filed in support of Writ Petition in W.P.No.7251 of 2018, which are usefully extracted hereunder:

"5. I further submit that, the 6th respondent herein is a retired Deputy Executive Engineer in Irrigation department in Nellore District, and he is a native of our Village and he and his wife namely Sankaramma have land behind our Houses, nearly Ac.1-75 cents and he wants to convert the same into house sites. There is passage in between the houses of 3rd and 4th petitioners, in a width of 6 feet, which is being used by 6th respondent, since long time as a ingress and egress. With a view to convent his agricultural land into house sites, the 6th respondent asked the petitioners 3 and 4 to leave 1 Ankanam each by removing part of their houses for widening the existing passage and for which he offered Rs.50,000/- each. I further submit that, the petitioners 3 and 4 rejected the offer made by the 6th respondent. Thereafter the 6th r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top