Writ appeal against a single Judge's direction granting police protection to enter and cultivate disputed agricultural land. The Division Bench modified the order: police may only assess and address threats to life and liberty; protection cannot be used to breach an earlier status quo order in another writ petition.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATjff/
o
TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL W o
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
W.A.NO: 231 OF 2024
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal preferred against the order Dt. 28-12-2023 in W.P.23636 of 2013 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
Linganna, S/o. Kenga Chittappa, aged 75yrs, R/o. Yerra Kondapuram Village, Brahmasamudram Mandal, Anantapuram District.
...APPELLANT
AND
...RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
V s’
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order Dt. 28-12-2023 passed by the learned single Judge of the Hon’ble High court in W.P.No.23636 of 2013 pending disposal of Writ Appeal by this Hon’ble court in the interests of justice, Or else, I would suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI INENI VENKATA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI K. SRINIVAS
Counsel for the Respondents No.2, 3, 4: GP FOR HOME
Counsel for the Respondent No.5:—
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010112132024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sr.No:-39 [3446] AT AMARAVATI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 231 OF 2024
Linganna
...APPELLANT
Vs.
U. Ramanjaneyulu and others ...RESPONDENTS
Sri M. Chalapathi Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, Advocate for the appellant. Sri D. V. Sitarama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri K. Srinivas, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondentNos.2to4.
CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
DATE : 2nd April 2024
P.C :
The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.12.2023 in W.P.No.23636 of 2013.
- By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the learned single Judge directed that the petitioner, who was apprehending danger to his life and liberty, be provided police protection to enable him to enter into the agricultural land and to continue with the agricultural activity over land admeasuring
2
Ac.23-00 cents in Sy.No.46 situated at Yerrakondapuram Village Brahmasamudram Mandal, Anantapuram District.
- Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that respondent No.1 herein, petitioner in the writ petition, had concealed from the learned single Judge the fact that in an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner being W.P.No.19991 of 2012, the Court had, with the consensus of the parties, directed that status quo should be maintained in respect of the land in question. It is stated that there is a civil suit which is already pending between the parties in regard to the land in question in which although no specific orders were issued in favour of the plaintiff/appellant herein, yet, by virtue of the order of the Court, status quo was being maintained. It is stated that by virtue of the judgment and order impugned in the instant case, respondent No.1 herein has been given a license under police protectiontoviolatethe order of status quo earlier passed by the writ Court in W.P.No. 19991 of 2012, which severely prejudices the rights of the petitioner. It is stated that the appellant herein is, in fact, in possession of the land in question, which is sought to be interfered with by respondent No.1 herein/petitione r under police protection.
\
- We do not wish to go into the question as to who is in actual possession of the land in question, which is the subject matter of dispute. We would like to make it clear that while it was permissible for the writ Court to have ordered police protection in the event there was danger to the life and liberty of the
I
\
3
petitioner/respondent No.1 herein, no such direction could have been issued permitting the petitioner to enter upon the land in question, which is the subject matter of dispute between the parties. Be that as it may, we modify the Judgment and order impugned to the extent that the official respondents i.e., the police authorities should only consider whether there is any threat to the life and liberty of the petitioner/respondent No.1 herein and in case there is, adequate steps should be taken to safeguard such rights, However, the police protection shall not, in any case, be given with a view to enable the petitioner to transgress or violate the order of status quo passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.19991 of 2012.
The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- E. KAMESWARA RAO
DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// L. SECTTON OFFICER
To.
Nm
MBT
' HIGH COURT
% V
<br>
DATED:02/04/2024
ORDER
WA.No.231 of 2024
X
3 0 APR 2023
i , y -v:.
''
DISPOSING OF THE WA
WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Could police protection be directed to enable a party to enter disputed land subject to a status quo order?
Whether the single Judge's order permitting entry onto land under police protection should be modified.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Linganna
U Ramanjaneyulu
The Superintendent of Police, Anantapuram
The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kalyandurgam
The Station House Officer, Brahmasamudram Police Station
Tirumala
Dhiraj Singh Thakur
R. Raghunandan Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
