ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON P SUNEEL KUMAR REDDY V/S K KARTHIK AND ANR.

AMARAVATI, India, March 24 -- Andhra Pradesh High Court issued the following order on Feb. 20:

1. The above contempt case was filed on 27.06.2025, complaining of violation of the order, dated 25.07.2023, passed in W.P.No.8841 of 2018.

2. The writ petition filed by the petitioner assailing the orders issued by the Joint Collector vide D.Dis.No.(E5) 4171/2014, dated 20.01.2018. The writ petition was allowed, and the operative portion of the order reads thus:

"In view of the above observation, this Court is of the opinion that the order of respondent No.2 videD.Dis.No.(E5) 4171/2014, dated 20.01.2018 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the order D.Dis.No.(E5) 4171/2014, dated 20.01.2018 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 shall consider the objections of the petitioner objectively and provide opportunity to the petitioner. Respondent No.4 also shall furnish copies of assignments made in favour of vendors of the petitioner, enabling the petitioner to raise appropriate grounds. Respondent No.2 shall also provide opportunity to respondent Nos.5 and 6 and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks."

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt case, it was contended that neither respondent No.1 nor respondent No.2 served a copy of the assignment despite the representation made by the petitioner on 07.02.2025 to furnish the assignment pattas, and thereby, respondent No.1 violated the order in the writ petition.

4. The above contempt case was initially listed on 09.07.2025 and was adjourned from time to time, at the request of learned counsel for the respondents.On 05.12.2025, Sri Praveen, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Balaji, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the assignment record could not be traced out. Again, on 20.12.2025, Sri Rasheed, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the assignment record was not available either in the Collector's office or in the office of the Tahsildar. On 29.01.2026, this Court directed respondents 1 and 2 to appear before the Court, along with the entire record. Accordingly, both the respondents appeared before this Court on 12.02.2026.

5. Sri K. Karthik, respondent No.1, learned Joint Collectorand Smt. Spoorthi, Tahsildar, respondent No.2 appeared before the Court on 12.02.2026. Respondent No.1 submitted that during the inquiry, the petitioner's vendor by name Dasu Ramanujamma produced a xerox copy of the D-form patta, said to have been assigned in her favour. However, the authority did not rely upon the said document, since the corresponding record is not available in the office of the Tahsildar, Kadavalur Mandal. He further submitted that against the order, dated 03.11.2024, passed vide D.DisNo.E1/656/2024, the petitioner filed a statutory revision before the Government, and the same is pending.

6. A copy of D-Form patta said to have been furnished by Smt. Dasu Ramanujamma is handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar. Neither the assignment number nor the date is available in the copy of the assignment.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xzf0ZNkaY1z56RTTlmeDBfXpA7ixwIVEOoeU4fZ9E1eV&caseno=CC/1592/2025&cCode=1&cino=APHC010321402025&state_code=2&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.