This is a statutory review of a very short judgment which concerns a writ petition. The court disposed of a short order for the settlement of a dispute regarding land.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.2816 OF 2023
ORDER:
The Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking to declare the action of respondents 3 and 4 in issuing directions to the petitioner to relinquish his rights over his agricultural land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.24 cents in survey No.145 situated at Ubicherla village, Gooty mandal, Ananthapuram district as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct respondents 3 and 4 not to call the petitioner for resolving any civil dispute with respect to the subject land.
The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner has been called to police station only for the purpose of investigation in crime No.367 of 2022 of Gooty police station registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC basing on a report lodged by 5th respondent, against the petitioner/A.1 and others, and to serve notice under Section 41A CrPC. The same is recorded. Police are directed not to call the petitioner to police station for any other purpose except in connection with investigation in the said crime which is registered as against him.
2
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs of the Writ Petition.
3
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________ _________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
02.03.2023 DRK
4
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.2816 OF 2023
02.03.2023
DRK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the action of respondents in issuing directions to the petitioner to relinquish rights over agricultural land is illegal and arbitrary.
Whether the court should direct respondents not to call the petitioner for resolving any civil dispute with respect to the subject land.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Petitioner
Respondents 3 and 4
5th Respondent
K. SREENIVASA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
