Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gedela Gowramma vs Hari Jawhar Lal on 7 November, 2025
Author: D Ramesh
Bench: D Ramesh
APHC010175612021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3208]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 895/2021
Between:
1. GEDELA GOWRAMMA, W/O.LATE RAMU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT
60 YEARS.OCC. DAY LABOR, R/O. KOMMAVALASA VILLAGE,
BOBBILI MANDAL, VIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH.
2. CHAPPA SIMHACHALAMA, S/O.LATE KUMAR NAIDU, HINDU,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. OCC DAY LABOR, R/ O.
KOMMAVALASA VILLAGE, BOBBILI MANDAL, VIANAGARAM
DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH.
3. CHOPPA RAMULU, S/O.LATE APPLA NAIDU, HINDU, AGED
ABOUT 72 YEARS.OCC DAY LABOR, R/O. KOMMAVALASA
VILLAGE, BOBBILI MANDAL, VIANAGARAM DISTRICT,
ANDHRAPRADESH.
4. CHAPPA SATYAM, S/O. LATE NARAYANA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT
55 YEARS.OCC DAY LABOR, R/O. KOMMAVALASA VILLAGE,
BOBBILI MANDAL, VIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH.
(R2 TO R4 NOT NECESSARY PARTY)
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. HARI JAWHAR LAL, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM
DISTIRCT., AP.
2. VIDHAYA KHARE, SUB COLLECTOR, PARVATHIPURAM,
VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT , AP.
2
3. REDDY SAIKRISHNA, TAHSILDAR, BOBBILI MANDAL,
VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT , AP.
...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 summons and punish the respondents
herein under the provisions of 10 to 12 of Contempt of Court Act 1971 for
the action of respondents with intentionally, deliberately, willfully violated the
orders of this Hon'ble Court passed in interim order in WP No.407/2021
dated 06.012021 and pass such other order or orders
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. BONU RAMA SHANKAR RAO
Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. P SUBASH
The Court made the following:
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 895 of 2021
ORDER:
This contempt case is filed against the respondents for willful disobedience of the orders dated 06.01.2021 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in W.P.No.407 of 2021.
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that the respondents have now changed the location of the construction of the building and not interfering with the petitioners' property and hence, no further orders are required to be passed in the contempt case.
In view of the above, the Contempt Case is closed. No costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the contempt case shall stand closed.
__________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Dt: 07.11.2025 sj 4 111 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CONTEMPT CASE NO: 895 of 2021 Dt: 07.11.2025 sj