Disposed

Golla Nagendra Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Sept 2019WP/12930/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a writ petition for police protection over disputed agricultural land. The court observed that a civil injunction was violated but emphasized the civil court's authority to punish disobedience. The High Court directed the police to consider complaints filed by the petitioner regarding interference only after the initiation of appropriate counters under Order XXXIX.

What did the court decide?

The police is directed to consider fresh complaints filed by the petitioner regarding violation of injunction orders and provide protection upon follow-up of incident.

Golla Nagendra Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.12930 of 2019

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This is a writ of Mandamus filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to provide police aid/protection to the petitioner’s property in an extent of Ac.1.86¾ cents in Rs.No.177-2-A at T.Gannavaram village, Mylavaram Mandal, Krishna District.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for Respondents 1 to 3.

¶6

Since the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent – police, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondents 4 and 5.

¶7

The case of the petitioner is that he is a retired teacher staying at Edara village, Agiripalli Mandal, Krishna District, doing cultivation. He has purchased agriculture land to an extent of Ac.1.86¾ cents in Rs.No.177-2-A at T.Gannavaram village, Mylavaram Mandal, Krishna District under a registered sale deed vide Doc.No.4178/2018, dated 27.07.2018, for a consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- from Vignesh Raja Guinalan S/o.Gunalan and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. While so, the Respondents 4 and 5 have been trying to dispossess the petitioner alleging that they have purchased the schedule property under an agreement of sale for purchase of the schedule property from the vendor of the petitioner. As the respondents 4 and 5 have been interfering in the possession of the petitioner, he filed a suit in O.S.No.107 of 2019 on the file of the Court of

¶8

¶9

Junior Civil Judge, Mylavaram. In the suit, the petitioner has filed an application in I.A.616 of 2019 for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining respondents 4 and 5 from interfering with his peaceful possession. Learned Junior Civil Judge granted temporary injunction in his favour vide order dated 10.05.2019. In spite of the interim order passed by the civil court, the respondents 4 and 5 have been interfering in his possession over the schedule property. Therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint to the respondent –police against respondents 4 and 5 and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.187 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 447, 427, 323 and 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. Even the police have issued a notice under Section 91 of Cr.P.C to the respondents 4 and 5. Since the respondents have been continuously violating the orders of the trial court, the petitioner has filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule 2(a) C.P.C to punish them for violating the orders of the civil Court. The respondents have not filed any counter. The petitioner is unable to cultivate his land due to highhanded activities of the respondents 4 and 5. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking a direction to the respondentpolice to provide protection for implementing the injunction orders granted by the civil court in his favour.

¶10

Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the petitioner may approach the civil Court and can seek redressal under Order XXXIX Rule 1& 2 and Rule 2(a) C.P.C.

¶11

On consideration of the submissions, it is obvious that there is a civil dispute pending between the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5, and the

¶12

¶13

civil court has granted an injunction order in favour of the petitioner restraining respondents 4 and 5. As there was disobedience of the orders, the petitioner has filed a petition under Order XXXIX Rule- 2(a) C.P.C and it is pending adjudication before the trial court. The petitioner, being a retired teacher, is unable to protect his land due to interference of respondents 4 and 5.

¶14

The grievance of the petitioner is that he has already lodged a complaint to the police against respondents 4 and 5 and no action has been taken on his complaint.

¶15

It is the duty of the civil court to see that the orders passed by it are implemented. If the respondents violated the orders, there is a provision under order XXXIX Rule 2 (a) C.P.C to punish the contemnors. In the instant case, in spite of the injunction orders passed by the civil court, the respondents appear to have exceeded their limits and have been trying to encroach into schedule property.

¶16

In fact, there is no procedure of implementation of the injunction orders contemplated under Civil Procedure Code except the provisions under Order XXXIX Rule 2(a) CPC for taking action for disobedience of the orders, which remedy has already been availed by the petitioner. Therefore, it is left open to the petitioner to give a fresh complaint to the police whenever the respondents 4 and 5 attempt any criminal acts and interference in respect of the petitioner’s land. On such complaint, the 3^rd respondent- police is hereby directed to consider the same and give

¶17

¶18

protection to the petitioner whenever there is violation of the injunction orders passed by the Civil Court after following due process of law.

¶19

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

___________________________ JUSTICE G.SYAM PRASAD

¶21

13.09.2019 Mjl/Rjs

Golla Nagendra Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Golla Nagendra Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Masthan Vs the State of Ap

Surya Wines Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Samala Sivaram, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dudala Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Sreekanth Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

G.Venkatasubba Naidu, Vs The State Of A.P.