APHC010478192024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CONTEMPT CASE NO: 4141/2024 Between:

1. SATYALA VEERA VENKATA NAGA MALLESHWARI, W/O S.RAGHAVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44YRS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO.5-218, NEAR POTTI SREE RAMULU STATUE, NUZIVID TOWN AND MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. SMT K VETRI SELVI IAS, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU.

2. D V SUBBA RAO, TAHSILDAR, NUZIVID MANDAL, ELURU 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 pleased to punish the respondent herein under sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for their wilful violation and deliberate disobedience to the order of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No. 33522 of 2023, dated 02.01.2024 passed by his Lordship Sri Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. KODATI RAMYA KRISHNA Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

1. J DILEEP KUMAR ORDER This Contempt Case is filed alleging non compliance of the order dated

02.01.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.No.33522 of 2023.

2. The facts that led to filing of the Contempt Case, in brief, are that Through the orders dated 02.01.2024, the authorities are directed to consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner within a period of three (03) months. The petitioner contends that pursuant to the orders of this Court, she submitted representations on 04.03.2024 and 19.08.2024 to the respondent no.1, but they were not considered and disposed of as directed by this Court.

Therefore, there is willful disobedience of the orders of this Court.

3. The respondent no.1 filed reply affidavit contending that pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, notice has been issued to the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner attended for personal hearing and submitted tax receipt and Building Permit Order and after due enquiry the District Level Redressal Committee, upon scrutinizing the proposals and records submitted by the Sub Collector, recommended for rejection of the request of the petitioner for deletion of Ac.0-32 cents from Prohibited Properties List under Section 22-A(1)(a) of the Registration Act. That based on the recommendations of the District Level Redressal Committee, proceedings have been issued rejecting the application of the petitioner and therefore, the order of this Court has duly been complied, but for with some delay, which was due to searching for old files.

4. Heard Ms. K.Ramya Krishna, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri J.Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1.

5. Ms. K.Ramya Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the proceedings were passed after one year of filing of this Contempt Case and this itself shows the deliberate disobedience of the respondent and accordingly prayed to allow the contempt case.

6. Sri J.Dileep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.1, would contend that the authorities have to trace out the very old files for effective adjudication of the matter and thus the delay occurred, which is neither deliberate nor willful. He would further contend that the contempt case being meritless deserves dismissal.

7. By issuing proceedings vide Roc.No.e-87129/2025/E2(LMS), dated

07.10.2025 the orders passed by this Court directing the authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s application has been complied, however with delay. The writ petition was disposed of on 02.01.2024 and according to the petitioner she submitted her representation on 04.03.2024, whereas the impugned orders were passed on 07.10.2025, nearly a year after filing of this Contempt Case. The reason offered by respondent no.1 that the delay was occurred due to tracing out and verification of very old files for passing effective orders, is