Allowed

Duppalapudi Satyanarayana, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Dec 2019WP/7595/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction against the fourth respondent to provide police aid to enforce an interim injunction order in O.S. No. 212 of 2017. The court noted the trial court had ordered police assistance on 05.03.2019, but it was not provided due to objections from unofficial respondents holding an interim injunction. The court found no valid excuse for such inaction

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the fourth respondent to provide necessary police aid for enforcing the order in I.A No. 1047 of 2017 in O.S No. 212 of 2017.

Duppalapudi Satyanarayana, Vs State of Andhra… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

Writ Petition No.7595 of 2019

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is filed, seeking direction against respondent Nos.2 to 4 to provide police aid to petitioner for implementation of interim injunction order in I.A No.1047 of 2017 in O.S No.212 of 2017, passed by VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, dated 01.10.2018, declare their inaction as illegal and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India.

¶5

The petitioner entered into an agreement with M. Raghavamma and V. Kameswaramma on 04.04.2014, purchased the subject property for Rs.40,00,000/- payable in three installments, took possession of property, since then he is in possession and enjoyment of property. As the said M. Raghavamma and V. Kameswaramma, did not execute sale deed, petitioner filed O.S No.174 of 2017 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada for specific performance, after receipt of summons in the said suit, they executed sale deed in favour of petitioner.

¶6

It is further contended that unofficial respondents herein got eye over the subject property, brought into existence one registered partition deed in respect of land in Sy.No.26/21, manipulated records, then petitioner along with his predecessors, filed O.S No.212 of 2017 for declaration of title and also filed I.A No.1047 of 2017 for temporary injunction, pursuant to the order in I.A No.1047 of 2017, granting interim injunction, petitioner filed I.A No.1078 of 2018 to provide police aid to implement the order, but fourth respondent did not

¶7

wp_7595_ 2019

¶8

2 MSM, J

¶9

respond to the request, despite order passed by the trial Court in I.A No.1078 of 2018 dated 05.03.2019. Thus, the inaction of fourth respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India.

¶10

During hearing, the learned Counsel for petitioner reiterated the contentions, while highlighting inaction on the part of fourth respondent, in failure to provide police aid, despite, order granted by trial court dated 05.03.2019 in I.A No.1078 of 2018, it amounts to failure to discharge their public duty, being public officer, requested to issue direction to fourth respondent to provide police aid to petitioner, to implement order in I.A No.1078 of 2018.

¶11

Whereas, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contended that, if fourth respondent provide police aid to petitioner, it amounts to interference with civil dispute and as per written instructions placed on record, one A.S.I 2779, HC 2841, PC 867 and HG 702 were directed to assist the petitioner in implementation of interim injunction order in I.A No.1047 of 2017 and that unofficial respondents also objected for providing such police aid, on the ground that they obtained interim injunction restraining the petitioner herein. Therefore, they did not provide any further police aid to petitioner, requested to pass appropriate order.

¶12

It is an undisputed fact that suit in O.S No.174 of 2017 is filed before trial court for specific performance and immediately on receipt of summons in the said suit, sale deed was executed in favour of petitioner. As unofficial respondents created certain documents,

¶13

wp_7595_ 2019

¶14

3 MSM, J

¶15

petitioner filed O.S No.212 of 2017 for grant of injunction, the trial court was pleased to pass an order granting interim injunction which is in force till date. Later, as petitioner could not resist the unnecessary interference of unofficial respondents, filed I.A No.1078 of 2018, for grant of police aid and the court was pleased to issue direction for providing police aid on 05.03.2019, letter was addressed to Sub-Inspector of Police, Sarpavaram Police Station, Kakinada for providing police aid, in pursuance of direction issued by the court in I.A No.1078 of 2018, in pursuance of the said direction, staff i.e. A.S.I 2779, HC 2841, PC 867 and HG 702 were directed to assist the petitioner in implementing order in I.A No.1078 of 2018, but learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home contended that respondents therein resisted the action of police in providing police aid to petitioner on the ground that they also obtained interim injunction order against the petitioner therein, but no such order is available and no details are placed on record before this Court, except contention that on account of interim injunction order obtained by third parties/unofficial respondents herein, police aid could not be provided to the petitioner. Therefore, there is absolutely no excuse for inaction of police, being public officers in failure to discharge their public duty.

¶16

Failure to provide police aid, despite order dated 05.03.2019 in I.A No.1078 of 2018, is nothing but flouting the order of trial court and such inaction has to be viewed seriously. But for one reason or the other, a lame excuse that unofficial respondents objected to provide police aid to the petitioner, they did not provide police aid to enforce the order in I.A No.1047 of 2017, but this is not an excuse.

¶17

wp_7595_ 2019

¶18

4 MSM, J

¶19

Hence, I find that it is a fit case to issue direction to fourth respondent to provide necessary police aid only enforcing order in I.A No.1047 of 2017 in O.S No.212 of 2017, subject to bearing necessary expenses by petitioner.

¶20

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶22

______________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶23

Dated 13.12.2019 Note: Issue C.C by 17.12.2019 b/o Rvk

Duppalapudi Satyanarayana, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Duppalapudi Satyanarayana, v. 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

Addagalla Gopalakrishna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Narra Sarasawathi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Divya Jyothi Enterprises, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Saikam Jayachandra Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

E. Natarajan, Vs the State of Ap

J Bhuvaneswari Vs State of Andhra Pradesh