Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Lands Of The Petitioners In The ... vs Ganpat Duggar And Others on 29 January, 2026
APHC010416192025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CONTEMPT CASE NO: 2182/2025
Between:
1. DANE NARAMMA, W/O LATE NAGAIAH AGE 49 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE E
G.DT) A.P
2. SOYAM ADAMMA, W/O BHADRAIAH AGE 65 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
3. DANE SESHA RAO, W/O CHINA RAMAIAH, AGE 65 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
4. DANE RAMANA, W/O BHADRAIAH, AGE 45 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
5. DANE RAJU, , S/O SATYAM, AGE- 50 YEARS,
R/O,NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM
PANCHAYAT, KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT
(ERSTWHILE E.G.DT) A.P
6. DANE SEETAMMA,, W/O LAXMAIAH, AGE- 48 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, .S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
Page 2 of 7
E.G.DT) A.P
7. SODE SESHAMMA, , W/O BHADRAIAH, AGE- 50 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
8. SODE VENKAMMA, , W/O PULLAIAH, AGE- 65 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
9. KITCHA LATCHAMMA ,, W/O CHINA RAMAIAH, AGE- 65 YEARS,
R/O NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM
PANCHAYAT , KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT
(ERSTWHILE E.G.DT) A.P
10. DANE LAXMAIAH,, W/O BHADRAIAH, AGE- 52 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT ,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
11. SOYAM GOPAL, , S/O LATE BUCHI RAJU, AGE. 52 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
12. SOYAM RAGHUNADH, , S/O, LATE RAMA RAO , AGE 52 YEARS,
R/O NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM
PANCHAYAT, KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT
(ERSTWHILE E.G.DT) A.P
13. SOYAM LAKSHMANA RAO, , S/O LATE DESAIAH , AGE 42 YEARS,
R/O NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM
PANCHAYAT, KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT
(ERSTWHILE E.G.DT) A.P
14. URMA VEERAIAH,, S/O NARAYANA RAO , AGE 40 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
15. . SODE CHANDRAMMA,, W/O LATE VENKAIAH , AGE 70 YEARS,
R/O NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM
Page 3 of 7
PANCHAYAT , KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT
(ERSTWHILE E.G.DT) A.P
16. . KARAM MAHALAKSHMI,, W/O GOPAIAH , AGE 51 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
17. KARAM TAMMMAIAH,, W/O RAMAIAH , AGE. 55 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
18. JEDDI MUTHAMMA,, W/O PANDAIAH , AGE. 34 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
19. JEDDI SEETAMMA,, W/O VENKAIAH , AGE. 54 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
20. JEDDI VENKAMMA ,, W/O SEETARAMAIAH , AGE. 58 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
21. JEDDI YERRAIAH,, S/O VENKAIAH , AGE.37 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
22. JEDDI GANGA RAJU,, S/O SEETARAMAIAH, AGE.26 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT ,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
23. JEDDI BHADRAIAH,, S/O VENKAIAH, AGE 30 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
Page 4 of 7
24. JEDDI KRISHNA VENI,, W/O BHEEMAIAH, AGE 30 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
25. URMA RAMAMMA,, W/O VEERAIAH, AGE 60 YEARS, R/O.
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT ,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
26. KATTAM CHANDER RAO,, S/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGE 42
YEARS, R/O NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM
PANCHAYAT, KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT
(ERSTWHILE E.G.DT) A.P
27. KURSAM SATYANARAYANA,, S/O SEETARAMUDU, AGE 42
YEARS, R/O NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM
PANCHAYAT, KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT
(ERSTWHILE E.G.DT) A.P
28. MADAKA SESHAMMA, W/O BAJARU, AGE 46 YEARS, R/O
NARASINGAPETA VILLAGE, VENKAYATAPALEM PANCHAYAT,
KUNAVARAM MANDAL, A.S.R MANYAM DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE
E.G.DT) A.P
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. R VENKATA RAMANA NAIK, THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
(LAND ACQUISITION) (FAC) (TRANSFERRED AS A.O, SAAR)
POLAVARAM IRRIGATION PROJECT, KUNAVARAM UNIT,
CHINTURU, ALLURI SITARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P.,
2. K NARASAIAH, THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (LAND
ACQUISITION) POLAVARAM IRRIGATION PROJECT, KUNAVARAM
UNIT, CHINTURU, ALLURI SITARAMA RAJU DISTRICT, A.P.,
...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 issue the summons to the Respondents 1 & 2 and punish them
for Contempt of the Hon'ble Court orders in W.P.No.4745/2024,
Page 5 of 7
dt.03.04.2024 passed by the Hon'ble SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
by willful disobedience and complied the above said orders and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. K J V N PUNDAREEKAKSHUDU
Counsel for the Contemnor(S):
1. J DILEEP KUMAR
The Court made the following:
ORDER
The above contempt case was filed complaining violation of the order dated 03.04.2024 in W.P.No.4745 of 2024.
2. Petitioners filed the aforementioned writ petition to declare the action of respondents 2 to 4 in not considering the representation dated 19.05.2022 to initiate resumption proceedings in respect of D-Patta lands of the petitioners situated at Narsingapeta, Kunavaram Mandal, Alluri Seetaramaraju Manyam District and in paying ex gratia, as illegal and arbitrary.
3. The writ petition was disposed of on 03.04.2024, and the operative portion of the order reads thus:
"5. In view of instructions submitted by the Assistant Government Pleader, without going into other aspects of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.4 to pass appropriate orders, pursuant to the representation made by the petitioners on 19.05.2022 qua the D-patta lands filed by the petitioners in Narasingapeta Village, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and communicate the same to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs."
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it was stated that the respondents violated the order.
Page 6 of 75. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of 1st respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that as per the report of the Superintendent Engineer, PIPHW Circle, Dowleiswaram, the land of Narasingapeta village submerged at contour level 45.55 was notified under Award No.1 of 2019 dated 18.06.2019. The lands of the petitioners in the present contempt case were not included in the said award and are proposed to be acquired in Phase-II of the Polavaram Irrigation Project. The petitioners were never directed to vacate the lands. The petitioners continue to remain in possession. Along with the counter affidavit, an endorsement dated 28.11.2024 was annexed. Thereafter, the respondent issued another endorsement dated NIL.11.2025, reiterating the averments in the endorsement dated 28.11.2024 filed along with the counter affidavit.
6. Thus, as seen from the endorsements, the lands of the petitioners were not acquired, and the petitioners have the lands.
7. Sri K.J.V.N.Pundareekakshudu, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that the lands of the petitioners were submerged about 10 years back; however, the respondents failed to pay compensation.
8. Whether the lands of the petitioners were submerged or not is a disputed question of fact. In fact, this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the learned respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioners. Accordingly, the endorsements dated 28.11.2024 and NIL.11.2025 were issued. Since the endorsements referred to above were issued, this Court does not find any violation of the order in the writ petition.
9. In J.S.Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and Others1, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thuas under:
"....once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek 1 (1996) 6 SCC 291 Page 7 of 7 redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the willful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, afresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act."
10. Thus, as seen from the expression of the Hon'ble Apex Court, since the endorsements were issued in compliance with the order in the writ petition, the petitioners, if aggrieved, can challenge the same.
11. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, this court doesn't find a violation of the order dated 03.04.2024 in W.P.No.4745 of 2024, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs.
However, this order will not preclude the petitioners from challenging the endorsements dated 28.11.2024 and NIL.11.2025 before the appropriate authority, if they are aggrieved.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD