Petitioners alleged police interference with possession of their property amid civil disputes and sought a declaration under Article 226. Police denied the allegations via written instructions. Finding nothing survived for adjudication, the court closed the writ petition without costs.
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 APHC010058952015 :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction) [ 3310 TUESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF ] FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 10 OF 2015
Between:
SRI.M.KRISHNA & 2 OTHERS AND OTHERS ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
THE STATE OF AP HOME DEPT 4 OTHERS AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, seeking the following relief:
“….declaring the action of the Respondents Nos.4 and 5 in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property Civil disputes as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16 & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents Nos.4 and 5 interfering in the petitioners schedule properties disputes and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. INENI VENKATA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP)
The Court made the following:
Heard Mr.V.Sreemannarayana, learned counsel, representing
Mr.Ineni Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents.
copy of written instructions, dated 19.01.2015 of the 5th respondent-
Station House Officer, Hindupur I Town Police Station. As per the instructions, the respondent-police never called the petitioners and never threatened them and the petitioners unnecessarily involved the police into his civil disputes. As such, the allegations leveled against the respondent-police are totally false and baseless.
closed.
_____________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
ARR
HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
Writ Petition No.10 of 2015
Date: 13.02.2024
ARR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether police interference in the petitioners' possession and enjoyment of their property in a civil dispute was illegal, arbitrary, or violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. M. Krishna & 2 Others
The State of AP Home Dept
K Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
