The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that a pending contempt case does not stop the Government from pursuing its legal remedies, including an appeal. On that basis, it condoned the State’s delay in challenging a 2022 Single Judge order concerning a couple’s claim for an alternate site in Tirupati.
The Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar allowed both writ appeals filed by the State. It set aside the Single Judge’s order and the order rejecting the review, and restored the original writ petition for fresh hearing.
Background
The dispute arose from the widening of the road from Town Club Junction to Alipiri in Tirupati. T. Vaijayanthimala and T. Viswanadhamchetty had filed W.P.No.10304 of 1994, which was dismissed as withdrawn in 1995 after their counsel reported that the authorities were providing alternate accommodation. No liberty to file a fresh petition was granted.
Their structures were later demolished. They were paid ₹40,999 and ₹1,37,140 as compensation for the structures. In W.P.No.16440 of 2010, the High Court directed the authorities to consider their legal notice dated 23.09.2009 in light of a 2001 order passed in favour of seven other displaced persons.
The District Collector rejected the claim on 08.04.2015. He held that the land was Government land, the respondents were encroachers in the above-poverty-line category, and the seven others who received house sites were below-poverty-line families. A Single Judge set aside this order on 14.11.2022, observing that the respondents’ ownership through a registered sale deed was “an admitted fact.”
On reconsideration, the Collector rejected the claim again on 28.11.2023. He also found that the house-site pattas relied on by the respondents were non-existent and fabricated. That order was not challenged.
The respondents then initiated contempt proceedings. The State’s review application was dismissed with liberty to file a writ appeal.
Arguments
Special Government Pleader T. Vishnu Teja, appearing for the State, submitted that the authorities had already complied with the Single Judge’s order by passing a reasoned order. He said the appeal was filed only because the respondents continued to pursue contempt proceedings. He argued that the respondents were encroachers, not assignees, and could claim no parity with the seven earlier petitioners.
Advocate Pulipati Radhika, appearing for the respondents, contended that the appeal was time-barred. Relying on Israr Ahmad Khan v. Amarnath Prasad, she argued that delay should not be condoned while contempt proceedings were pending. Citing Satish V.K. v. Federal Bank Limited, she further submitted that no appeal lies against an order rejecting a review.
Pending Contempt No Bar to Appeal
The Bench accepted that the Government should not wait for contempt proceedings to begin before challenging an order. It nonetheless held:
“the filing of a contempt case, does not debar the Government from taking legal remedies, including filing of an appeal.”
The Court added that the appellate court may condone delay on sufficient cause even where contempt proceedings have already started. Referring to Israr Ahmad Khan, it held that the case fell within the exceptional category because it concerned Government land and involved public interest.
Relying on G. Ramegowda, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani and Antiyur Town Panchayat v. G. Arumugam, the Bench observed:
“An individual cannot be allowed to gain at the cost of the public interest, because of delay in preferring the appeal by the government, if the individual has no legal right, interest or title otherwise.”
Findings on Merits
Applying Sarguja Transport Service, the Court noted that the 1994 petition had been withdrawn without liberty. It found that no material showed any undertaking to provide alternate accommodation. It also found that the Collector’s findings against the respondents had not been reversed by the Single Judge, and held:
“it was not an admitted fact by the State that, the petitioners were the absolute owners.”
Distinguishing Satish V.K., the Bench said writ appeals are not governed by Order XLVII Rule 7(1) CPC. It added that the State had challenged both the main order and the review order.
Outcome
The delay was condoned and both writ appeals were allowed. W.P.No.15895 of 2015 was restored, and the State was directed to file its counter. The respondents were given liberty to challenge the Collector’s order dated 28.11.2023 in appropriate proceedings. No costs were imposed.
Case Title: State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. T. Vaijayanthimala and Another
Case No.: Writ Appeal Nos. 1011 and 1064 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Alapati Giridhar
Date: 10.10.2026
