Andhra Pradesh High Court
CC/390/2026 of M KAVALI RAMAYYA NAIDU Vs NISANTH KUMAR on 2 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH CONTEMPT CASE NO: 390/2026 Between: 1. M KAVALI RAMAYYA NAIDU, S/O LATE KAVALI CHINNAYYA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
APHC010035982026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 390/2026
Between:
1. M KAVALI RAMAYYA NAIDU, S/O LATE KAVALI CHINNAYYA, AGED
ABOUT
YEARS,
OCC
AGRICULTURE
R/O
MAJARA
DOOREVANDLAPALLI, MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K.V.PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 2.
2. KAVALI NAGARJUNA NAIDU, S/O KAVALI RAMAYYA AGED ABOUT
YEARS
OCC
AGRICULTURE
R/O
MAJARA
DOOREVANDLAPALLI, MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K.V PALLE
MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
3. KAVALI VENKATRAMANA, S/O LATE CHINNAYYA AGED ABOUT 67
YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O MAJARA DOOREVANDLAPALLI, MATAMPALLI
VILLAGE,
K.V.PALLE
MANDAL,
ANNAMAYYA
DISTRICT.
4. KAVALI MALLIKARJUNA, S/O K VENKATRAMANA AGED ABOUT 31
YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O MAJARA DOOREVANDLAPALLI,
MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K.V PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA
DISTRICT
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. NISANTH KUMAR, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
2. SRINIVAS, THE REVNUE DIVISIOINAL OFFICER, ANNAMAYYA
DISTRICT. 3.
3. SRI C NARENDRA KUMAR, THE TAHSILDAR, K.V. PALLE
MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT
4. DURA NARAYANA NAIDU, S/O LATE YERRAPPA AGED ABOUT 60
YEARS,
OCC
AGRICULTURE
R/O
DOOREVANDLAPALLI,
DISTRICT.
5. DURA NAGAPPA, S/O LATE YERRAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OEC AGRICULTURE R/O DOOREVANDLAPALLI, MATAMPALLI
VILLAGE, K.V PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
6. DURA VENKATAPPA, S/O LATE YERRAPPA AGED ABOUT 63
YEARS,
OCC
AGRICULTURE
R/O
DOOREVANDLAPALLI,
MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K.V PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA
DISTRIET
7. DURA MALLAIAH, S/O LATE YERRAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O DOOREVANDLAPALLI, MATAMPALLI
8. DURA BHASKARA, S/O LATE YERRAPPA AGED ABOUT 56
YEARS,
OCC
AGRICULTURE
R/O
DOOREVANDLAPALLI,
MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K V PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA
DISTRICT.
9. KAVALI SEKHARA, S/O LATE CHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60
YEARS,
OCC
AGRICULTURE
R/O
DOOREVANDLAPALLI,
MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K.V PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA
DISTRICT.
10. KAVALI RAJAGOPAL, S/O LATE CHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55
YEARS,
OCC
AGRICULTURE
R/O
DOOREVANDLAPALLI,
MATAMPALLI VILLAGE, K V PALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA
DISTRIET.
11. PUJARI NAGARAJA, S/O PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC
AGRICULTURE
R/O
DOOREVANDLAPALLI,
MATAMPALLI
12. MARRIPATI VENKATRAMANA, S/O GANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 70
YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O BALAPPAGARIPALLI, H/O
GYARAMPALLI, K V PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
13. MARRIPATI RAJENDRA, S/O VENKATRAMANA AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O BALAPPAGARIPALLI, H/O
GYARAMPALLI, K V PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
14. MARRIPATI RAMESH, S/O VENKATRAMANA AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O BALAPPAGARIPALLI, H/O
GYARAMPALLI, K V PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
15. MARRIPATI PAPAIAH, S/O LATE MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O BALAPPAGARIPALLI, H/O
GYARAMPALLI, K V PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA 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 direct the notices to the respondents herein and punish the Respondents under section 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for deliberate, intentional and willful violation of the orders of this Hon’ble Court dated 14.11.2025 in WP.No.31765 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. VALLEPU REDDY NIKHIL GANESH
Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. SUSHMA YAGANTI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
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 Contempt Case has been filed by the petitioner herein in violation of the orders of this Court passed in W.P.No.31765 of 2025 dated 14.11.2025.
2. On perusal, this Court finds that while dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court made the following observations:
<6. In the said circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal under Section 10(i) of the Act within the statutory period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till filing of the said appeal, the respondent authorities are directed not to interfere and not to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land without following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.=
3. This Contempt Case was filed on the ground that despite a direction to the respondents not to interfere, the 4th respondent herein-Tahsildar, K.V.Palle, has obstructed the petitioner while the petitioner was erecting the compound fence.
4. Today, on instructions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause of action in this Contempt Case does not survive as the petitioners have already approached appellate authority as directed by this Court.
5. Recording the said submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, this Contempt Case is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Date: 03.03.2026 M K K
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
Contempt Case No.390 of 2026
Dated: 03.03.2026
M K K