Barre Vijaya Lakshmi v. the State of Andhra Pradesh
Case brief
What is this about?
In a writ petition for mandamus, the court directed police officials to provide protection for the petitioner to implement a permanent injunction decree that restrained some unofficial respondents from interfering with her possession of specific property.
What did the court decide?
Direction to respondents 3 and 4 (police officials) to provide protection/aid to petitioner for effective implementation of permanent injunction decree only in respect of 6 cents of land.
What the court decided
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION No.6175 of 2022
ORDER:-
This Writ Petition for mandamus is filed to declare the action of respondents – police officials in not providing police aid to the petitioner for effective implementation of the judgment and decree passed by the civil Court, as illegal and consequently sought direction to respondents 2 to 4 to provide police aid to the petitioner against the unofficial respondents 5 to 10 as per the representation submitted on 19.01.2021.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and learned counsel for the unofficial respondents 5 to 7 and 9. None appeared for respondents 8 and 10.
The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.54 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Palakol. She has filed the said suit against the unofficial respondents 5 to 10 for decree of permanent injunction restraining them and their men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the plaint schedule property of the said suit. The said suit was decreed on 02.01.2019 granting permanent injunction decree in favour of the petitioner in respect of the plaint schedule property restraining the unofficial respondents herein from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the property.
2
Now, the grievance of the writ petitioner is that despite passing of the said permanent injunction decree, the unofficial respondents 5 to 10 are still interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the said property and as such she has submitted a representation, dated 19.01.2021, with the respondents – police officials seeking police aid and they are not providing the said police aid.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether police officials must provide aid for implementation of a civil court decree restricting interference with property possession.
Whether police aid is limited to the specific land area covered by the injunction decree.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
Rts 2-4 and Unofficial Rts 5-10
Coram
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Andhra Pradesh HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/6175/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Harika Agencies Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Thummala Venu Gopal, and Another Vs the S.H.O., Bandiatmakur P.S., and 5 Others
Sri Sri Pururava Vamsa (Mudiraj, Koli) Nitya Annadana Charitable Trust, Vs State of Ap
Appannagari Bhaskar at Appannagari Bhaskara Naidu, Anantapur Vs the Station House Officer, Anantapur District and 2 Others