Allowed

Rai Naramma, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Dec 2022WP/16492/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging inaction regarding police protection, the High Court relied on its own finding and a Supreme Court precedent establishing the petitioners' possession. The Court held that alternative remedies do not preclude writ intervention and directed police authorities to protect the petitioners' possession over the disputed land.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to afford necessary police protection to the petitioners in protecting their possession over the said land.

Rai Naramma, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.16492 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners herein are claiming ownership and possession of approximate Ac.300.00 cents of land in various survey numbers of Beemolu Village of Gopalapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. This land was the subject matter of Land Ceiling proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, 1973. The original land holder of these lands had filed a declaration giving the details of these lands as part of his holdings. On that basis, land ceiling proceedings were concluded and the land was declared as surplus land and thereafter, possession is said to have been taken over by the Mandal Revenue Inspector through a Panchanama dated 24.01.2005. The petitioners and their predecessors who were the tenants in occupation of the said land had challenged the said proceedings. These proceedings culminated in an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.Brahmayya and others vs. Ala Venkata Rao and

¶5

Others¹ wherein it was held that the petitioners and their predecessors were in possession. Thereafter, the Revenue

¶6

1 (1990) 2 SCC 283

¶7

¶8

Divisional Officer had issued directions for taking possession of the said lands. These directions were challenged before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P.No.954 of 2005 and batch, which was disposed of by an order dated 02.06.2017, by a learned Single Judge.

¶9

The learned Single Judge while allowing the said writ petitions had held that the panchanama conducted by the Mandal Revenue Inspector on 24.01.2005 was null and void and that the petitioners continue to be in possession of the above land. On that basis, further directions were given to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the said land.

¶10

This order of the learned Single Judge was challenged, by way of Appeals in W.A.Nos.1070, 1072 & 1076 of 2017. These appeals were dismissed on 29.08.2018.

¶11

Certain persons who are said to have been assigned this land, after the land had been taken over by the Mandal Revenue Inspector, had participated in the litigation in the challenge made by the petitioners against the original land ceiling proceedings and in fact were party to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G.Brahmayya and others vs. Ala Venkata Rao and Others. Some of the assignees were also parties to the Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals mentioned above.

¶12

¶13

The petitioners herein on the ground that some of the assignees were interfering with their possession over the said land, had approached the Court of IX Additional District Judge, Kovvur, by way of O.S.No.76 of 2017, for injunction simplicitor, restraining the assignees from interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the said land. I.A.No.1175 of 2017 was also filed for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit.

¶14

The trial Court by an order dated 21.10.2017 had initially granted an interim injunction. Thereafter, the petitioners had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.15312 of 2020, for grant of police protection, to protect the ad-interim injunction granted by the trial Court. This writ petition was disposed of on 21.12.2020, holding that the interim injunction obtained by the petitioners was an ad-interim injunction and it would be appropriate to renew the request for police protection only after a final decision is taken in the said injunction application. Both the parties were also directed to maintain status quo relating to the standing crop.

¶15

The trial Court after hearing both sides had made the ad-interim injunction absolute, by way of an order dated 23.02.2021.

¶16

¶17

The petitioners have approached this Court again by way of the present writ petition contending that their possession over the land is being disturbed by the assignees and their request for police protection dated 05.07.2021 was not being acted upon and for a direction to the police authorities to grant police protection to the petitioners over the land which is the subject matter of O.S.No.76 of 2017.

¶18

Sri P.Raja Sekhar learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mangena Sree Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the consistent findings of both the Hon’ble High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, apart from the findings of the trial Court, would clearly demonstrate the long standing possession of the petitioners over the said land and that inaction of the police parties in affording protection for the purpose of implementing the injunction order is clearly arbitrary and an abdication of the duties of the official respondents.

¶19

Sri K.Jyothi Prasad learned counsel, appearing for respondents 9 to 12, 14, 15, 17, 22, 23, 30 to 32 would submit that the said respondents are in possession of the said land and they had been cultivating the land. He would submit that the present writ petition was filed in relation to a standing crop of the year 2021 which had been successfully harvested by the

¶20

¶21

said respondents. He would further submit that three crops had been raised thereafter and the present crop standing on the land has to be harvested by these respondents. He would further submit that neither the respondents nor their predecessors were party to the initial litigation, relating to the land ceiling proceedings and as such, they were unable to present their case relating to possession of the land. He would further submit that the petitioners have already filed an application before the civil Court, for police protection, which was numbered as I.A.No.862 of 2018, which is still pending. He would submit that the petitioners having invoked an effective alternative remedy cannot approach this Court, by way of the present writ petition.

¶22

In view of the Judgments mentioned above, the finding, that the petitioners are in possession of the land, cannot be overturned by this Court and the said finding is binding on this Court.

¶23

The contention of Sri K.Jyothi Prasad that the

¶24

respondents represented by him were not party to the proceedings and that the findings given in the said proceedings would not be binding on them, cannot be accepted. The assignees were represented before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.Brahmayya and others vs. Ala Venkata Rao and

¶25

¶26

Others , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that it is the tenants/petitioners who were in possession of the land.

¶27

It is also clear that the petitioners have obtained and injunction, after contest, and the same is in operation as on today.

¶28

While it is true that the petitioners had approached the civil Court, by way of application for police protection, the fact would remain that the pendency of the said application need not restrain this Court from passing orders in these proceedings. It is settled law that the presence of an alternative remedy or the exercise of that alternative remedy does not preclude this Court from acting under Article 226 of Constitution of India and it is at best a self imposed restraint by this Court.

¶29

In these circumstances, it is clear that the official respondents 3 to 6 would be required to aid and assist the Court in implementing the orders of the Court. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the official respondents had received the request/complaint of the petitioners on 07.07.2021.howver, action could not be taken as the matter was pending before the civil Court and was being highly contested and further there was no direction from the civil Court on the

¶30

¶31

application filed for police protection. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would also submit that there would be serious law and order issues in giving such police protection as there are numerous assignees in the land.

¶32

While the reservations expressed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader may have merited consideration, the fact remains that the orders of the Court have to be implemented and complied with. The said orders of the Court have been passed after due consideration on the respective contentions of both sides. In the circumstances, there shall be a direction to respondents 9 to 12, 14, 15, 17, 22, 23, 30 to 32 to afford necessary police protection to the petitioners in protecting their possession over the said land.

¶33

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶35

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

¶36

08.12.2022 RJS

¶37

¶38

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶39

WRIT PETITION No.16492 of 2021

¶40

08.12.2022

¶41

RJS

Rai Naramma, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rai Naramma, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lingamgunta Dasaradharamaiah Vs Mr. Shashibushan Kumar

Gattala Pitchaiah Vs Mr. Shashibushan Kumar

Ambati Venkatasubbaiah Vs Shashibushan Kumar

Gudapati Sony Kumari Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Raparthi Swami Naidu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Billu Chandrika Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh