Andhra Pradesh High Court
CC/2096/2026 of B.Mohammad Areef Vs Sri.V.Reddy Sekhar on 30 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2096/2026 Between: 1. B.MOHAMMAD AREEF, S/O. B.ABDUL REAHIMAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.
APHC010304612026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2096/2026
Between:
1. B.MOHAMMAD AREEF, S/O. B.ABDUL REAHIMAN, AGED ABOUT 51
YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO. 9-462, RAYACHOTI ROAD
KADIRI
MANDAL,
SRI
SATYA
SAI
DISTRICT,
(FORMERLY
ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT).
...PETITIONER
AND
1. SRI V REDDY SEKHAR, THE TAHSILDAR, KADIRI MANDAL, SRI
SATYA SAI DISTRICT.
2. SRI G MOINUDDIN, THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, KADIRI MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI 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 respondents under the Contempt of Court Act for willful and deliberate disobedience of the orders passed in W.P.No.29447 of 2025, Dt.29.10.2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KANAKALA DEVI PRASANNAKUMAR
Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. SUSHMA YAGANTI
The Court made the following:
CONTEMPT CASE No.2096 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Court, vide order dated 29.10.2025 in W.P.No.29447 of 2025, directed the respondents to consider the F-Line application dated 08.02.2024 submitted by the petitioner for conducting survey.
2. For non-compliance of the said order, the present Contempt Case has been filed.
3. Pending consideration of the contempt case, the Tahsildar has passed an order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner through proceeding dated 10.06.2026, in the following:
“In accordance with the orders of the High Court and the provisions of the Sub-Division, Survey and Boundary Act, the sub-division was carried out by the then Mandal Surveyor and the Deputy Inspector of Survey in compliance with the relevant rules, and that the orders of the High Court were not violated in any manner.
Therefore, as it is not possible to accede to Mr.Mohammad Arif's request at this stage, the request to cancel Sub-division No. 8A (dated 07.05.2025) has been rejected.”
4. It is pertinent to state that the same officer i.e., the Tahsildar addressed a letter dated 24.08.2026, (the same is part of record), to the learned Government Pleader office to request this Court to seek further time for compliance of the order of this Court and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder as it is imperative:
“In this regard, I submit that the compliance report and connected records are under process and further time is required for completing the necessary formalities and for furnishing the complete compliance report to the learned counsel representing the Respondents before the Hon’ble High Court.
Therefore, I request that the learned counsel may kindly seek an adjournment of the matter for a reasonable period before the Hon’ble High Court, so as to enable the Respondents to submit the complete compliance report along with the necessary records.”
5. Although, the direction given by this Court has been complied with on 10.06.2026, the compliance report was not placed before this Court when the matter was listed on 25.08.2026. Instead, simply a letter was addressed to the Government Pleader to seek adjournment before this Court.
6. The respondent-Tahsildar has mislead the learned counsel and he is dictating the counsel, how to represent before the Court. The attitude of officer clearly manifests a total lack of respect for the Court and its orders. The officer has rejected the application to conduct the survey vide order dated 10.06.2026. However, the said order was not placed before this Court when the contempt case was listed before this court on 25.08.2026, despite a lapse of more than two months. Instead, he simply addressed a letter to seek an adjournment before this Court for compliance. This attitude of the officer clearly demonstrates the officer’s high handedness and the officer should be punished accordingly.
7. Therefore, the Contempt Case is allowed and the contemnor is punished with imposing costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) payable to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The said amount shall be paid from the pocket of the 1st respondent-Tahsildar and the same shall be recorded in the Service Register of the Tahsildar.
Consequently, interlocutory applications, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 31.08.2026 KBN
Contempt Case No.2096 of 2026
31.08.2026 KBN