Andhra Pradesh High Court
CC/2969/2026 of Inturi Srinivasa Rao Vs CM Saikanth Varma, on 28 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2969/2026 Between: 1. INTURI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.AKKAIAH,AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,R/O.11-41-25/1, SIVAGANGA
APHC010427042026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2969/2026
Between:
1. INTURI
SRINIVASA
RAO,
S/O.AKKAIAH,AGED
ABOUT
YEARS,R/O.11-41-25/1, SIVAGANGA STREET,AMARAVATI VILLAGE
AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT
2. CHALAMALASETTY SIVARAMA PRASAD, S/O.VENKATESWARA
RAO,AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,R/O.TUMMALA VILLAGE, REPALLE
MANDAL,GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. CM SAIKANTH VARMA, I.A.S. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,GUNTUR
DISTRICT, GUNTUR.
2. KRISHNAKANTH, TAHSILDAR, PEDAKAKANI MANDAL,GUNTUR
DISTRICT, A.P.
...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 summon the respondents contemnors herein and punish them for willful, deliberate and intentional contempt of the Order, dt. 15.09.2025 in W.P.No.24568 of 2025, passed by this Honble Court Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. V SURYA KIRAN KUMAR
2. V Surya Kiran Kumar
Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. SUSHMA YAGANTI
The Court made the following:
Page 1 of 2
CONTEMPT CASE No.2969 of 2026
ORDER:
This Court, vide order dated 15.09.2026, directed the respondents to examine the issue and take appropriate action in accordance with law, based on the petitioners’ applications/representations dated 07.09.2023 and 16.10.2023, within a period of two (02) months.
2. For non-compliance with the said order, the present Contempt Case came to be filed. The 1st respondent/District Collector, vide proceedings dated 29.09.2026, has considered the applications/representations and rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that the subject land in the writ petition is classified as dotted land.
3. However, as the 1st respondent has considered and decided the applications/representations dated 07.09.2023 and 16.10.2023 filed by the petitioners, the respondents have complied with the orders of this Court.
4. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to file an appropriate application challenging the proceedings dated 29.09.2026. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, interlocutory applications, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 29.09.2026 RMD
Contempt Case No.2969 of 2026
Date: 29.09.2026 RMD
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…