CC/568/2022 of SURA GANGI REDDY Vs K.S.JAWAHAR REDDY on 14 June 2026

1. SURA GANGI REDDY YEARS, OCC. CU H/O.MUTHUKURU V DISTRICT.

1. K.S.JAWAHAR REDD OF ANDHRA PRAD DEPARTMENT, S AMARAVATHI, GUNT

2. M.RAMA MOHAN, COLLECTORATE, CU

3. T.AJAY KUMAR, T ACQUISITION, SOMA KADAPA DISTRICT.

4. SHASHI BHUSHAN GOVERNMENT O RESOURCES(IRRIGA BUILDINGS,VELAGAP

5. M.SRINIVASULA R NTR,TGP,TIRUPATI,

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURY EMPT CASE No: 568 of 2022 Y, S/o.CHINNA GANGIREDDY, AGED A ULTIVATION, R/O CHOUTAPALLI VILLAGE, ATLURU MANDAL, Y.S.R. ...PE AND DY, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVE DESH, WATER RESOURCES (IRR ECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELA TUR DISTRICT. THE SPECIAL COLLECTOR (L UDDAPAH, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT. HE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTO ASILA PROJECT, UNIT-IV, RAJAMPE

KUMAR, SPECIAL CHIEF SEC OF ANDHRA PRADESH

ATION) DEPARTMENT,

SECR PUDI, AMARAVATI,GUNTUR DISTRIC REDDY, THE CHIEF ENGINE TIRUPATI DISTRICT

H

YA ABOUT 54 VILLAGE, KADAPA TITIONER ERNMENT RIGATION) AGAPUDI, .A.)GNSS, OR, LAND ET, Y.S.R. CRETARY, WATER RETARIAT CT. EER,(FAC)

6. B V RAMANA REDDY, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, SOMASILA CIRCLE NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

7. B DASARADHARAMI REDDY, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, S.P DIVISION NO.I, SOMASILA, ANANTHASAGARAM MANDAL, S.P.S.R NELLORE DISTRICT

8. M VENKATA RAMANA REDDY, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, S.P.DIVISION NO.IV, SOMASILA, ATMAKURU,S.P.S.R NELLORE DISTRICT. RR 4 TO 8 IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 16.11.2023 VIDE I.A NO.3 AND 4 OF 2023 VIDE IA NO.568 OF

9. G SAI PRASAD, SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF A P WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 24 10 2024 VIDE I A NO 2 OF 2024 IN CC NO 568 OF 2022

...CONTEMNOR(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. Mr.D KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Contemnor(S):

1. Mrs.SUSHMA YAGANTI

2. Mr.C VAMSI KRISHNA

3. Mr.KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY

Orders Reserved on

: 12.03.2026 Orders Pronounced on : 15.06.2026 Orders Uploaded on

: 18.06.2026

The Court made the following order:

The present Contempt Case is filed alleging non-implementation of the order dated 30.04.2021 in W.P.No.20861 of 2020.

2. Claiming that land of petitioner of an extent of Ac.1.30 cents in Survey No.15/2A, Ac.0.28 cents in Survey No.16/1, Ac.0.11 cents in Survey No.16/2A and Ac.0.38 cents in Survey No.19/3B1 A2 and land of his wife to an extent of Ac.2.48 cents in Survey No.19/3B1B fall within the submergence area of Somasila Project and respondent-authorities are not initiating land acquisition proceedings relating to the said lands apart from others, the said writ petition is filed.

3. A learned Judge, at the time of considering the matter with reference to contentions inter alia to the effect that authorities under the influence of the persons, who are enemically disposed of against the petitioners are changing stand with regard to the submersion of the petitioners’ lands, formulated a point for determination as to “whether the lands of the petitioners are affected by backwaters of Somasila Project and if there is in action of the respondents to initiate proceedings for their acquisition?”. Appreciating the material on record, including counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 therein, Learned Judge disposed of writ petition with directions, while recording his opinion in categorical terms, as mentioned below:

“18. However, the ground situation is better known to the petitioners, who have lands in the village and the Revenue, Engineering and Survey officers working at the field level in this area. Therefore, in order to placate apprehensions of the petitioners that their lands were left out from the acquisition process, though they are affected on account of this project, it is desirable to have a re-look into the entire situation. The farmers who are dependant on lands usually would not come forward to forego their precious possession on account of the attachment they have. When their lands are abutting a reservoir, it is well- known that they command better irrigation facilities on account of copious availability of water.

19. Therefore, when they have complained that their lands and structures are submerged in the backwaters of Somasila Reservoir, it is better for the 1st respondent-Principal Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, to get a survey conducted through the office of Chief Engineer, who is incharge of Somasila Project. Not only the cases of the petitioners but also similarly placed and affected farmers can be considered in this process. Initiation of this process is not in disregard of what was done already by the Engineers of SP Division-04, Atmakur and others. This suggested step is also a measure of confirmation of what was done already, to allay the apprehensions of these farmers.

20. Reversal of his decision by the Executive Engineer, S.P.Division No.4, Atmakur for acquisition of these lands, though seriously commented upon by the petitioners, when the ground realities remain otherwise, cannot as such be found fault with.”

4. Directions issued by Learned Judge reads as follows:

“1. The 1st respondent-Principal Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh shall get the lands in Muthukuru village of Atluru Mandal, Kadapa District and other areas of likely submergence in the backwaters of Somasila project including of the petitioners in S.Nos.15, 16/1 and 19/3A of the same village, verified and surveyed through the office of the Chief Engineer, Somasila Project, collect necessary data clearly identifying whether these lands are within the range of FRL (330 feet contour) and within the water spread area of 212.285 Sq.Kms.

2. If it is observed that these lands are within the submergible area under this project and if not acquired so far under land acquisition proceedings either under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or under the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the Government shall direct initiation of such acquisition proceedings.

3. In the process of such verification, the material and reports already collected by the office of the Executive Engineer, S.P. Division-4, Atmakur and of other engineering officers relating to this project including of survey, shall be considered.

4. This entire exercise should be completed within the period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

5. Order of learned Judge had attained finality, as no appeal was preferred.

6. Present Contempt Case alleging non-compliance of the aforementioned directions, is, however, filed only by petitioner No.1 in the writ petition. Be that as it may.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner argued the matter strenuously and extensively by drawing the attention of this Court to various documents / material to substantiate that respondents are guilty of Contempt of Court for non-implementation of the directions dated 30.04.2021 issued in the writ petition. He submits that though six months time was granted for completion of entire exercise in terms of the directions of the Court, respondents have not initiated any action and under such circumstances, Contempt Case was filed on 26.02.2022.

8. Non-implementation of the directions within the stipulated time amounts to disobedience of Court Orders and on that ground alone, respondents are liable for punishment under Contempt of Courts Act. He further contends that by virtue of indulgence of the Court, though with an in ordinate delay Special Chief Secretary, Water Resources Department filed a counter-affidavit, dated 08.06.2022 wherein it is stated that an extent of Ac.6.10 cents in Survey Nos.15, 16/1 and 19/3 of Muthukuru Village is within the water spread area of 212.285 sq. kilo meters and below FRL contour and steps will be taken for acquisition of the said land, in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act, 2013’) and land acquisition proceedings will be initiated by issuing appropriate Notifications, to the utter dismay of the petitioners, the same were not proceeded further on the premise that some complaints were received against the petitioners by the neighbouring land owners, that in the surveys conducted pursuant thereto, it was found that subject matter lands are above FRL. He submits that respondent authorities took ‘U’ turn at the behest of the petitioner’s rivals instead of implementing the orders of the Court, which in fact were partly complied with and non-implementation of the orders in toto has to be viewed seriously and respondent-authorities have to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act.

9. Learned Counsel specifically contends that before conducting surveys, in which it was allegedly found that subject matter lands are above FRL, no notices were issued and therefore, the said survey reports have no sanctity in Law. He also submits that the only intention of the respondents appears to be to somehow avoid payment of compensation in respect of the petitioners’

lands, which are coming under submergence as per the earlier report of the Executive Engineer dated 15.12.2021. Contending that as the directions of the Court remained unchallenged, the respondents have to obey and implement the same without any demur and placing reliance on decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.1, Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C.Muddaiah2, Order dated 17.07.2015 of a Division Bench of erstwhile Common High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh and for the State of Telangana in C.C.No.933 of 2009 etc., he submits that all the past and present officers, who are impleaded in the Contempt Case are guilty of “willful disobedience and non- implementation of the Court orders, as such, liable to be punished.

10. On the other hand, Mr.Dileep Naik, learned counsel for the respondents made submissions with reference to the counter-affidavit of respondent No.9, in particular. While not disputing the averments made in the counter-affidavit of respondent No.1 dated 08.06.2022 with regard to initial report of the Chief Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project to the effect that lands in question are coming under submergence of below FRL contour, he empathically submits that in the subsequent surveys which were initiated on complaints received in ‘Spandana’ complaint cell, it was found that the lands are above FRL and therefore, no further proceedings for acquisition of lands was felt necessary. He submits that in view of the contradictory reports, a Three Men Committee was appointed and as per the report dated 16.05.2023 submitted by the said 1 (2004) 7 SCC 261 2 (2007) 7 SCC 689

Committee, land in Survey Nos.19/3B, 15/2 and 16/1 is above FRL and in fact, land owners were present at the time of demarcation of lands. He submits that in view of the comprehensive report dated 22.05.2023 submitted by the District Collector to the Principal Secretary to Government, Water Resources (LA) Department, it is clear that land reclamation is done in the fields for irrigating different types of crops and banking is also formed with excavated or levelled soil. He submits that earlier Survey dated 13.12.2021 was not properly conducted and in the light of the above stated position, initiation of land acquisition proceedings would not arise and the contention that respondents are guilty of wilful disobedience of the directions, is not tenable. He submits that respondents have great respect to the orders passed by this Court and tendering unconditional apologies for the delay, which is neither wilful nor wanton, but due to facts and circumstances stated above. He submits that no case is made out against respondents and as such, Contempt Case is liable to be dismissed.

11. This Court has considered submissions made and perused material on record.

12. On an appreciation of rival contentions coupled with available documentary evidence, the point that arises for consideration is “Whether the respondents are guilty of wilful disobedience / non-implementation of the orders / directions of the Court and if so, whether they are liable for punishment under Contempt of Courts Act?

13. Before dealing with the point in issue, it may be appropriate to mention that the matter was taken up for consideration on different dates to enable the concerned respondents to file their respective counter-affidavits. It is pertinent to mention that on 20.12.2022, this Court in view of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader on the basis of written instructions seeking six months time for completion of the entire land acquisition process relating to an extent of Ac.6.14 cents, granted three months time. In fact, the first respondent in the counter-affidavit, dated 08.06.2022 stated as follows: “6. In this regard, I respectfully submit that , w.r.t. directions of this Hon’ble court in W.P.No.20861 of 2020, the 1st respondent has examined the issue, duly getting the ground report from the Chief Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project, Tirupati Somasila Project and found that the petitioner’s lands to an extent of Ac.6.10 cents in Sy.Nos.15, 16/1 and 19/3 of Muthukuru (V), Atlur (M), YSR Kadapa District are within the water spread area of 212.285 sq.kms and below the FRL contour (330 feet) of Somasila Project. Therefore, after careful examination of the matter, permission has been accorded to the Chief Engineer, Telugu Ganga Project, Tirupati Somasila Project to acquire the lands to an extent of Ac.6.10 cents in Sy.Nos.15, 16, 19/3 in Muthukuru Village of Atluru (M), YSR Kadapa District are within the water spread area of 212.285 sq.kms and below FRL (330 feet) of Somasila Project, duly following the provisions under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 vide Government Memo No.ICD01/743/2021-LA, Water Resources Department, dated 07.06.2022.”

14. As seen from Memo dated 07.06.2022 annexed to the said counter, it is discernible that Government after careful examination of the matter, accorded permission to acquire land of an extent of Ac.6.10 cents in Survey Nos.15, 16, 19/3 in Muthukuru Village as the same is within the water spread area of 212.285 square kilo metres and below FRL(330 feet) of Somasila Project by duly following the provisions under the Act, 2013. A reading of counter- affidavit filed by respondent No.2 during July, 2022 would further indicate that Preliminary Notification under Land Acquisition Act was published vide

Gazette No.49 of 2022 dated 06.06.2022 and Paper Notifications were issued in Andhra Jyothi dated 07.06.2022 and Times of India dated 08.06.2022, that after receipt of declaration and award proposals from the Special Deputy Collector(LA), Somasila Project, Unit-IV, Rajampeta, further action will be initiated in the matter and compensation will be paid to the petitioners.

“11. Accordingly, the Preliminary Notification proposals received from the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Somasila project, Unit-IV, Rajampet are approved vide this office reference Ref.No.A1/12/2020 Dated 15.06.2022 and published in District Gazette and two local news papers as detailed below: Type of Notification Gazette No. & Date 1st Paper 2nd Paper Preliminary Notification

Dt.06.06.2022 Andhra Jyothi Dt:07.06.202

Times of India Dt. 08.06.2022

12. In this connection it is submitted that, in compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.20861/2020, dt: 30.04.2021, the LA process is initiated and soon after receipt of Declaration & Award proposals from the Special Deputy Collector (LA), Somasila Project, Unit-IV, Rajampet further action will be initiated in the matter and compensation will be paid to the petitioners.”

15. The respondents, however, instead of completing the land acquisition proceedings in terms of the above referred counter-affidavits of respondents 1 & 2, subsequently took a stand that the subject matter land is not coming under submersion and therefore the same is no longer required for acquisition.

16. This Court while not appreciating the changed version granted further time on 29.03.2023 for passing award, more particularly in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the concerned respondents and even in the Proceedings dated 11.05.2023, this

Court recorded a view with regard to wilful defiance of the order dated 30.04.2021. Be that as it may.

17. The change in the stand and reasons for non-compliance with the orders / directions, according to the respondent authorities is that survey/s dated 18.06.2022 etc., conducted subsequent to the earlier survey disclosed that subject matter land is above FRL. It is also their case that the surveys were conducted after giving notice to the land owner / petitioner. But learned counsel for petitioner specifically denied conduct of the said surveys by issuing notices. In this context, it may be pertinent to mention that in the communication of the Executive Engineer dated 09.01.2023 to the Superintending Engineer in respect of survey of subject matter lands pursuant to Spandana representations by third parties i.e., B.Nanda Gopal Reddy, wherein it was stated that lands in Survey Nos.15, 16/1 and 19/3A are not covered under submersion, was there any reference to issuance of notice to petitioners / owners of the land in the said survey numbers. Even the Inspection Notes dated 01.03.2023 in respect of inspection stated to have been conducted by the Superintending Engineer pursuant to the representation made on behalf of the petitioner, does not contain any signatures much less of the petitioner to support the version that land owners were present at the time of inspection. Though in the Communication dated 22.05.2023 of the District Collector (referred to supra), to the Principal Secretary to Government, Water Resources Department, pursuant to the report of a Three Men Committee, there was a mention about the presence of petitioner during the purported survey, references regarding issuance of notices to the petitioner(s) / land owners, much less dates on which service was effected etc., were “conspicuously absent.” Copies of notices, if any, are not filed along with counter-affidavits. Under the said circumstances, this Court finds merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that alleged surveys were conducted without giving opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore the same cannot be the basis for the contention that land acquisition proceedings are not necessary as the lands in question are not coming under submersion.

18. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to point out that respondents, obviously, in view of the present Contempt Case, though initiated some action with reference to the subject matter lands, glossed over the first direction dated 30.04.2021, which is unambiguous and provides that the first respondent-Principal Secretary, Water Resources (Irrigation) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh shall get the lands in Muthukuru Village and other areas of likely submergence in the backwaters of Somasila Project including of the petitioners in Survey Nos.15, 16/1 and 19/3A of the same village, verified and surveyed through the office of the Chief Engineer, Somasila Project, collect necessary data, clearly identifying whether lands are within the range of FRL (330 feet contour) and within the water spread area of 212 sq. Kms. Available record does not indicate that the respondent authorities more particularly the 1st respondent had issued any directions to the concerned for getting the lands in the Muthukuru Village and other areas of likely submergence in the backwaters of Somasila Project along with subject matter lands. Causing / taking up of survey of the subject matter lands alone, itself amounts to non-implementation of the specific orders / directions dated 30.04.2021 and tantamounts to Contempt of Court. Be that as it may.

19. As noted earlier, directions in the writ petition were issued after recording specific contentions advanced on behalf of both sides. A plea that the concerned authorities are acting under the influence of the petitioners’ rivals was specifically raised. For implementation of the directions, a survey was initially conducted on 13.12.2021 in respect of the subject matter lands and it was found that they are coming under submersion. On the basis of the said survey report, further steps including issuance of Preliminary Notification dated 06.06.2022 were initiated. In such circumstances, conducting second survey that too, entertaining some complaints and giving a go by to orders / directions of the Court which were partly complied with cannot be appreciated. It may not be out of place to mention here that the submission of Mr.Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy who represented the 1st respondent herein that the first survey dated 13.12.2021 was not properly conducted, therefore action was initiated against the concerned Executive Engineer also, deserves no consideration. The writ petition was disposed of on 30.04.2021. Prior to that, on 20.02.2019, the Executive Engineer, S.P.Division No.IV, Atmakur addressed a communication to the Special Collector(L.A.), GNSS, wherein he submitted requisition for acquisition of lands of an extent Ac.6.10 in Survey Nos.15, 16/1 and 19/3 of Mutukukru Village which are existing near periphery

of Somasila Project Reservoir and gets submersion when water stores to the FRL. The said communication was taken note of in the order dated 30.04.2021. Subsequent to the orders in the writ petition, another Executive Engineer submitted a report dated 15.12.2021 to the Superintending Engineer, Somasila Project Circle to the effect that in his inspection subject matter lands were found to be submerged due to back waters of Somasila Project. The said report was accepted by the higher authorities including the Chief Engineer, as also Government and land acquisition proceedings were initiated. Under the said circumstances, dropping of further action on the basis of some surveys which were conducted without issuing any notice to the petitioner, leads to a conclusion that the respondents are trying to get over the orders of the Court, without strict compliance. The conduct of the respondents, who were holding charge of the respective posts at the relevant time and the present incumbents, tanta-amounts to wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court and as such liable for punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. It may be relevant to emphasize here that the direction No.3 of the order dated 30.04.2021 was simply ignored and all the reports were silent about the verification of material / record already collected by office of Executive Engineer, Somasila Project, Div-4, Atmakur.

20. It is settled Law that once a direction is issued by a Competent Court, it has to be obeyed without any reservation. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to Law. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court depreciated the tendency of Government officers to somehow or the other circumvent the orders of the Court taking recourse to one justification or the other even if ex-facie they are unsustainable and held that the tendency of undermining the Court orders can not be countenanced. (See: E.T.Sunup v. CANSS Employees Association reported in (2004) 8 SCC 683)

21. In Kapildeo Prasad Sah & Ors., v. State of Bihar & Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held as follows:

“9……..Judicial orders are to be properly understood and complied. Even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience particularly when attention of the person is drawn to the court’s orders and its implication. Disobedience of court’s order strikes at the very root of rule of law on which our system of government is based. Power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of effective legal system. It is exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice.”

22. In the present case, six months time for implementation of the directions dated 30.04.2021 was granted. Thus, at least by end of 2021, the order should have been implemented. Assuming that the survey at the first instance after directions dated 30.04.2021 was not properly conducted and another survey is to be carried out in view of certain reasons, the only course of action left to the respondents is to bring it to the notice of the Court and seek appropriate orders, more particularly in view of initiation of land acquisition proceedings, after time for implementation of the Court Order was sought and granted. However, after partly implementing the order, under the guise of Spandana complaint dated 28.09.2022 and surveys carried on pursuant thereto, the respondents dropped further action, which clearly indicates that they are taking shelter under the subsequent reports with a deliberate intention to defy the Court orders. Therefore, they are guilty of Contempt of Court. As the directions dated 30.04.2021 remained unimplemented till date, all the respondents are responsible for non-implementation of the orders and deserves appropriate punishment.

23. However, with a view to give one last opportunity to purge the contempt, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Contempt case, providing that with in three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the exercise of award enquiry on the basis of Notification dated 06.06.2022 by issuing appropriate notices to the petitioner / land owners under proper acknowledgment shall be completed, failing which appropriate order of punishment would be passed. Compliance affidavit / report shall be filed before the Registry on or before 30.09.2026.

24. The Contempt Case is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

Dt. 15.06.2026 BLV

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

C.C. No: 568 of 2022 Date: 15.06.2026 BLV