High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petit'oners :SRl HARI SREEDHAR Counsel for the Sole Respondent : SRI S'CHALAPATHI RAO The Court made the following: ORDER i I I 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN ORDER: CONTEMPT CA SE No. 1616 of 2024 Heard Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri S. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel for respondent.

2. This Contempt Case is filed alleging willful and deliberate violation of order dated 03.11.2023 passed by this Court in Civil Revision petition No. l g44 of 2023.

3. By the aforesaid order, this Court while setting hside order dated 18.03.2023 passed by learned Agenf,:to Govemment, KJrammam, in I.A.No.54 ol 2022 in O.S.No.49 of 2022, remanded the matter back to the learned Agent to Govemment, Khammam, lor consideration of the said I.A. afresh along wirh I.A.No.5 3 o12022 in O.S.No.4tt of 2022 and to pass orders after consiclering the contentions/grounds raised by the parties and also docunrents frled by them and by giving opportunity to both sides. This Courl further directed learned Agent to Government, Kharnrnam, to complete the gaid exercise within a period of three (3) months fiorn the date of i I L j i I I I I I I I l I i I I {.i 2 KL, J C.C.No.16l6 of 2024 receipt ofcoPY ofthe said order' This Court also directed both the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit schedule property in all respects' till then'

4. It is the specihc contention of petitioners that petitioners haveraisedcottonandmirchicropsinthesuitschedule property. Respondent along with one Maloth Swamy came to the suit schedule property and ploughed the same with a tradtorbearingNo.AP204583'Thus'accordingtopetitioners' respbndent violated the aforesaid order dated 03'll'2023 passed bY this Court tn deliberatelY-

5. Respondent f,rled counter contending that he is nothing todowiththesaidMalothSwatnyandheneverviolatedthe aforesaid order of this Court' The said Maloth Swamy obtained lands adjacent to the sult schedule land' on lease and is cultivating the same'

6. Petitioners fited reply adverting to the same by coirtending that through the respondent' the said Maloth Swamy cnterct into the suit schedule propertyln vlolalioq of I I J) 3 li1, J c c.No l6 t6 0f 2024 the status quo orderpassed by this Court. Therefbre, they have Iodged a complaint with the police. But, the police did not take any action. Therefore, they have filed a Writ petition vde W.P.No.l8427 of 2024 before this Court againsr respondent and the said Maloth Swamy to direct the police concerned to provide necessary protection to petitioners for implementation ofaforesaid status quo order passed by this Court. Thereupon, vide order dated 26.07.2024, in Writ petition No.lg427 of 2024, this Court directed Sub_lnspector of police, fu."piffi Police Station, to provide necessary police protection to petitioners for implementation o f the said starus quo order dared 03.1 l.2023incRp.No.lg44 of 2023,within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. However, pursuant to the said orcler o[ this Court, police, Karepalli, have registered a case in crime No.l75 ctf 2024 against the said Maloth Swamy and respondenr fbr the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 296(b) ancl 49 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Thus, according ro peririoners, at the instance of respondent, the said Matorh Swarny . l l l l ./_., { 4 I(L, J c.C No'1616 of 2024 O. ploughed the suit schedule property and violated the aforesaid status quo order passed by this Court' 7., . Perusal of record would reveal that at the instance of resirondent, the said Maloth Swamy along with Tractor ^ came to the suit schedule property on Ueifing No'AP20 45ttl '":+' n. and started ploughing the land' Thus' aciirding to petitioners' the said Matoth Swamy is the henchman of respondent' However' respondart has filed counter specifically contending that he is nothing to do with 'oelu-zozq at 11:oo a'n theisaid Maloth SwamY' 8. As discussed supra' petitioners have submitted a representation to the police with a request to provide police aid for implementation oi status quo order passed by this€ourt. The same was not considered' Therefore' they have filedi Writ Petition No l8427 of 2024' Thereupon' vide otder da$l 26.01.2024, this Court directed the Sub-Inspector of Polile/Station House Oft-rcer, Karepalti' to provide police aid to petitioners to implement the status quo order dated 03.11.2023 passed by this Court in CRP'No'1844 of 2023' I i t 5 c c.N".r6r6.rlotii Pursuant to the said order of this Court, the police registered a case in Crime No.l7 5 of 2024against ..rpord"n, and the said Maloth Swamy for the offences stated above. 9. To punish the contemnors in terms of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, there should be willful and

10. According to respondent, he is nothing to do with the said Maloth Swamy and he never violated the aforesaid status quo order passed by this Court. The said Maloth Swamy entered into the suit schedule property in violation ol.the status quo order passed by this court. Therefore, petitioners cannot file the Contempt Case against him. ll. As discussed supra, petitioners have already lodged a complaint before the police against the said Maloth Swamy and respondent. As the police did not take any action, petitioners have filed Writ Petition No.18427 of 2024 befbre this Court to direct Sub-Inspector of Police, Karepalli, to provide police aid. Vide order dated 2(r'07'2024' this Coutt directedtheSub-tnspectorofPolicetoprovidepoticeaidto ./ .-'? , I l I ! 1 i t I I i I I I I I I t 6 KL, J C c No 1616 of2024 r} the petitioners for implementation of aforesaid status quo order. Therefore, it is for the Investigating officer to conduct investigation in respect of Crime No' 175 of 2024 of Karepalli Police Station and c'onsider the aforesaid aspects' and this Court cannot consider the same in the present Contempt Case as the scope of this Contempt Case is very limited' ri;': : above' this court is of the view that 12. ' In the tight of tht rch less willfut and deliberate violation tfreiE is no violation mt of order dated 13'1 l'2023 in CRP'No'1844 ol 2023' on the part of the respondent' Therefore' this Contempt Case is liable to be closed' 13, Accordingly' this Contempt Case is closed' l I I l I l l I 1 I I i I I I i I

14. the leamed counsel At this stage, it is brought to the notice ol this Court by for pettttouers that though this Court Agent to Government to disPose of directed the leamed f.,Lfos.S+ and 53 of 2022 in O'S'Nos'49 and 48 of 2022 respectively, within a period of three (3) months' so far' the teahed Agent to Govemment is not taking up the aforesaid I.A.s for hearing and disposing of the same' :' 7 I5. In the light ofthe above, liberty is granted to petitioners c.c.N" 16r6.r,;ii to take steps in accordance with law. SD/- NAYANI CH //TRUE COPY// tt"#iE[tf,Ii3+-l SECTION OFFICER F;: Ei $;fl Jt?i^.,IEi?xf[^tltT:j3i331., / To, j AR/g v i I l ,i rJ l I : / i : 1ri' j I i I i I I l I I I i I t I I I I I I i HIGH COURT DATED:13/03t2025 ORDER CC.No.f 616 of 2024 ,/:'. \ 1 0 SEP 2025 CLOSING THE CONTEMPT CASE or-t