Allowed

Sarika Apparao v. Gumpina Varalakshmi

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Apr 2023WA/415/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this intra-court appeal, the High Court held that the single Judge erred in deciding the writ petition without hearing the appellants. The Court directed police to afford the appellants a hearing before deciding the petitioners' representation regarding police protection for agricultural land, and directed police not to intervene in the underlying property dispute.

What did the court decide?

Directed police to afford appellants an opportunity of hearing before deciding the petitioners' representation and not to intervene in the property dispute.

Sarika Apparao Vs Gumpina Varala… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶2

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶3

¶4

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶5

WRIT APPEAL No.415 of 2023

¶6

(Through physical mode)

¶7

Sri Sarika Apparao,

¶8

S/o. late Tathilu, aged about 65 years, R/o. Neralavalasa Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Vishakapatnam District, and others.

¶9

.. Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Gumpina Vara Lakshmi, W/o. Ramesh Guptha, aged about 50 years, R.o. Anakapalli Town, Vishakapatnam District, and others.

.. Respondents

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt: 20.04.2023

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

¶16

This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.2077 of 2023.

¶17

The aforesaid writ petition was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, questioning the inaction of the Station House Officer, Padmanabham Police Station, Visakhapatnam (respondent No.3 in the writ petition) in providing police protection for construction of compound wall to the writ petitioners’ agricultural dry land covered by Sy.No.17/4 (Ac.1.38 cents), Sy.No.18 (Ac.8.69 cents), Sy.No.20/2 (Ac.3.98 cents), Sy.No.20/1 (Ac.0.14 cents),

¶18

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.415 of 2023

¶19

¶20

altogether to an extent of Ac.14.19 cents, situated at Nerellavalasa Village, Padmanabham Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, pursuant to the writ petitioners’ representations dated 10.10.2022 and 05.11.2022, and for a consequential direction to the said Station House Officer to provide police protection for the purpose indicated. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the concerned police to dispose of the representation of the writ petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved thereby, respondent Nos.5 to 8 in the writ petition filed the present writ appeal.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the order under appeal has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants, while civil dispute is pending between them and the writ petitioners in relation to the subject property.

¶22

Considering the fact that the appellants were not provided an opportunity of hearing before passing of the order under appeal and also taking into account the fact that no positive direction was issued under the order appeal and it only directs the concerned police to dispose of the writ petitioners’ representation, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the appellants are provided an opportunity of hearing at the time of consideration of the representation of the writ petitioners by the concerned police in terms of the order under appeal.

¶23

HCJ & NJS,J W.A.No.415 of 2023

¶24

¶25

Accordingly, we direct that the concerned police shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the appellants herein while deciding the representation of the writ petitioners in terms of the direction issued by the learned single Judge. We further direct that till a decision is taken on the representation of the writ petitioners, the concerned police shall not get themselves involved in the dispute between the parties in relation to the subject property.

¶26

With the above directions, this writ appeal is disposed of. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶27

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J

¶28

IBL

Sarika Apparao v. Gumpina Varalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarika Apparao v. Gumpina Varalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamidi Yella Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Yunus Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Reddy Enterprises Vs the Union of India

M/S. C.Gopal Reddy and Co., Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Badamneni Srinivasa Rao Vs the Union of India

Budagatla Meghana Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh