APHC010315732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1625/2025 Between:

1. T . KRISHNAVENAMMA, W/O LATE T.GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O THOTTEMBEDU VILLAGE, THOTTEMBEDU MANDAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. P BHARATHI, The Mandal Tahasildar, Thottembedu Village and Mandal, Tirupathi district.

...CONTEMNOR 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 punish the Respondent under Sec. 10 to 12 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for willful, wanton, disobedience of the orders of this Hon'ble High Court dated. 18.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.5530 of 2024 by the Hon'ble Lordships and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VALLEPU JAGADEESH Counsel for the Contemnor:

1. SUSHMA YAGANTI The Court made the following:

The Court made the following order:

Not adhering to the directions of this Court dated 18.03.2024 passed in W.P.No.5530 of 2024, the present contempt case has been filed.

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

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made an application to the Tahsildar, Tottembedu Village, for issuance of pattadar passbook and title deeds in respect of her landed property. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was conducted and an endorsement dated 13.09.2023 was issued behind the back of the petitioner. Questioning the same, the petitioner approached this Court, wherein Hon’ble Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the endorsement dated 13.09.2023 and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar to adjudicate the issue afresh and pass appropriate orders within four weeks time. Despite such direction, the authority has not passed any orders. As such, the present contempt has been filed. There is a serious wilful disobedience on the part of the respondent-Tahsildar, as such, the respondent is liable for punishment.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on counter, contended that by virtue of the amended provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971, the Tahsildar recommended rejection of the petitioner’s case and forwarded the same along with all records to the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer, and the Revenue Divisional Officer has now passed orders rejecting the petitioner’s case. Though there was some delay, the same is neither wilful nor wanton.

5. The respondent-Tahsildar appeared before this Court and submitted that she was posted at the subject station only in the month of July, 2025 and immediately sent the recommendations to the Revenue Divisional Officer, and the delay that occurred was during the tenure of the earlier Tahsildar.

6. Perused the record and considered the submissions.

7. As could be culled out from the facts of the case, the Revenue Divisional Officer has already passed orders vide proceedings in D.Dis.C/1528/2025 dated 26.12.2025 rejecting the petitioner’s application for issuance of pattadar passbooks and title deeds. No doubt, certain delay has occurred, but this Court is satisfied with the explanation submitted for the delay. This contempt case is liable to be closed, as there is no wilful disobedience as alleged by the petitioner. Liberty is given to the petitioner to question the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 26.12.2025 before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

8. Accordingly, the contempt case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

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

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Dt.02.01.2026 JLV

259 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 1625/2025 Date: 02.01.2026 JLV