Andhra Pradesh High Court
CC/873/2025 of GUDLA NAGALAKSHMI Vs SRI R P SISODIA on 2 July 2026
reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : Date of uploading : APHC010157872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CONTEMPT CASE No: 873 of 2025 Between: 1. GUDLA NAGALAKSHMI, W/o.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT
Date of reserved for orders :
Date of pronouncement :
Date of uploading :
APHC010157872025
IN THE H
(
FRIDAY
THE HONOURAB
CONT
Between:
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.
1. GUDLA NAGALAKSH YEARS, OCC:CASH BHOGAPURAM MAN PRADESH.
1. SRI R.P.SISODIA, S SECRETARY, REVEN PRADESH, SECRETA
2. DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR, DISTRICT COLLECT PRADESH.
3. SMT DATIA KEERTH REVENUE
DIVIS OFFICER,
IN BHOGAPURAM, VIZI
4. SRI MAMIDIPALLI PETITIONER, THE MANDAL, VIZIANAGA
03.07.2026 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Y, THE 3rd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURY EMPT CASE No: 873 of 2025 HMI, W/o.RAMAKRISHNA, AGED A EW CULTIVATOR, R/o.KANCHERU NDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ...PE AND /o.NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, P NUE DEPARTMENT, THE STATE OF ARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITION TOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, HI, W/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PET SIONAL OFFICER-CUM-LAND ACQ TERNATIONAL GREENFIELD A IANAGARAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. SURESH, S/o. NOT KNOWN MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, BHOG ARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...CONTE
YA BOUT 41 VILLAGE, ANDHRA TITIONER PRINCIPAL ANDHRA NER, THE ANDHRA TITIONER, QUISITION AIRPORT, TO THE GAPURAM . MNOR(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Mr.N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Contemnor(S):s
1. Mr.N SIVA REDDY
2. Mr.K M KRISHNA REDDY
The Court made the following order:
Alleging violation of order dated 14.07.2023 in W.P.No.17261 of 2023, the present Contempt Case has been filed. Vide said order, a direction to maintain status quo with regard to writ petition subject property for a period of two weeks was granted. Subsequently, the order was extended on 26.12.2024 and the matter was directed to be listed on 06.03.2025. It appears that the writ petition itself was disposed of subsequently by an order dated 31.03.2026.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, who inter alia submits that during subsistence of the interim orders, respondents 2 to 4 along with others on 27.02.2025 cut down cashew and coconut trees. He submits that as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, petitioner along with her family members planted cashew trees, dependent upon the income derived by cultivating the same and that by cutting down the cashew and coconut trees, the respondents interfered with the possession of the petitioner by violating the status quo orders and they are liable to be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act.
3. On the other hand, Mr.K.M.Krishna Reddy, learned Government Pleader while denying the said contentions submits that the petitioner was never in possession and enjoyment of writ petition subject matter land. In fact, he submits that the possession of land, which is admittedly a Government land was handed over to Andhra Pradesh Airport Development Corporation Limited long back and the same is in its possession. He submits that a reading of the petitioner’s affidavit would clearly establish that she is not owner of the subject matter property and her status, if at all, may be an encroacher. He also denied the submission with regard to cutting of trees as alleged in the contempt petition.
4. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused material on record.
5. At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that the affidavit filed in support of the Contempt Case is vague and lacking in material particulars, more particularly with reference to number of trees alleged to have been cut down by respondents 2 to 4. Even in the writ petition, no details as to the number of trees planted / raised in an extent of Ac.2.57 cents, allegedly in peaceful possession of the petitioner were mentioned. Curiously, nothing is stated in the writ affidavit as to planting / raising of coconut trees by the petitioner. Further, though it was alleged in the Contempt Case that the respondents are blocking the petitioner from entering into land in question by constructing a wall and fencing and thereby violated the orders of the Court, no details are forthcoming as to when and to what extent construction and fencing over an area of Ac.2.75 cents was undertaken. That apart, to the reply-affidavits filed by respondents 2 to 4, the petitioner did not choose to file any rejoinder affidavit denying the specific assertions made by the respondents, thereby they remained un-rebutted.
6. In the aforementioned circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that on the basis of bald allegations, no case is made out and the petitioner failed to prima facie establish that the respondents have violated the orders of the
Court and such violation is willful and deliberate. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the prayer as sought for.
7. Accordingly, Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date : 03.07.2026 BLV
Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
C.C.No.873 of 2025 Dt: 03.07.2026
BLV