Dismissed

D.Venkataiah, Nellore Dist and 12 Others v. Prl Secy for Home, Hyd and 6 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Mar 2024WP/10853/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging police interference with land cultivation under the Consolidation of Jakuts and Homestead Lands Scheme. Observing that interim orders were already in place requiring police non-interference, the Court deemed no further fact-based adjudication necessary and made the interim order absolute before closing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The interim order granted on 01.04.2016 directing police non-interference was made absolute; the writ petition was disposed of without further costs.

D.Venkataiah, Nellore Dist and 12 Others Vs Prl… — Landlord and Tenant | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 10853 OF 2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

Dammu Venkataiah, S/o Rosaiah, aged 72 yea rs

¶8

Sanke Lakshmaiah, S/o Peddaiah, aged 67 years

¶9

Sanke Malyadri, S/o Lakshmaiah, aged 37 years

¶10

Vadde Kondamma, W/o Pullaiah, aged 54 yea rs

¶11

Dammu Ramanaiah, S/o Venkataiah, aged 50 years

¶12

Gaviri Ragaiah, S/o Chinnaiah, aged 71 years

¶13

Yerraguntia Kondamma, W/o Naraiah, aged 97 years

¶14

Sanke David, S/o Venkataiah, aged 42 yea rs

¶15

Sanke Malakondaiah, S/o Venkataiah, aged 87 years

¶16

Sanke Gandhi, S/o Narasaiah, aged 45 years

¶17

/ll. Medabalipi Naraiah, S/o Ramaiah, aged 64 years

¶18

Dammu Radhamma, W/o Malakondaiah, aged 47 years

¶19

Dammu Ramesh, S/o Kondaiah, aged 37 years

¶20

(All the petitioners are residents of Chakalikonda Village, Vinjamur Mandal, Nellore district, A.P.) ...Petitioners And 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its PrI. Secretary for Home, The Secretariat of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

¶21

¶22

The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore district, A.P.

¶23

The Station House Officer, Vinjamur, Vinjarnur (V) & (M), Nellore Dt., A.P.

¶24

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its PrI. Secretary for Revenue, The Secretariat of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

¶25

The District Collector, S.P.S.R.Nellore, Nellore town and district, A.P.

¶26

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Atmakur, Atmakur Mandal, Nellore district, A.P.

¶27

The Tahsildar, Vinjamur, Vinnamur Mandal, Nellore district, A.P. ...Respondents

¶28

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action on the part of the 3 rd respondent herein, who is the S.l. of police, Vinjam ur Police Station in preventing them from cultivating^thelands assigned to them under the C.J F.S. Scheme, in the year, 1978, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently, direct him to allow the petitioners to cultivate those lands.

¶29

LA. NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 13673 OF 2016t

¶30

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 direct the'S"'' respondent herein, who is the S.l. of Police, Vinjamur Police Station to allow us forthwith, to cultivate the lands assigned to us under the C.J.F.S. Scheme, in the year^1978.

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. VISHNU KUMAR REDDY

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

f*;

¶34

APHC010111292016

¶35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶36

[3310]

¶37

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶38

MONDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶39

PRESENT

¶40

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶41

WRIT PETITION NO: 10853/2016

¶42

Between:

¶43

D.venkataiah, Nellore Dist & 12 Others

¶44

...PETITIONER

¶45

AND

¶46

PrI Secy For Home Hyd 6 Others

¶47

...RESPONDENT

¶48

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶49

1.K VISHNU KUMAR REDDY

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶51

1.GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶52

The Court made the following:

¶53

ORDER:

¶54

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

¶55

Constitution of India seeking the following relief;-

¶56

" to declare the action on the part of 3''^ respondent, who is the SI of Police, Vinjamur PS in preventing them from cultivating the lands assigned to them under the CJFS scheme in the year 1978 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently, direct him to allow the petitioners to^cultivate those lands. ”

¶57

¶58

None represented for the Petitioners. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

¶59

Learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions submitted that this Court by Order 01.04.2016 granted^interim orders and in view of the same, no further adjudication, on facts. is required in this matter and prayed to close the^{WritPetitionas} nothing survives for adjudication.

¶60

This Court vide order dated 06.01.2016 granted interim stay as under:

¶61

“As it is asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the police authorities are interfering with the agricultural activities of the petitioners, there shall be a direction to the police authorities not to interfere in any such activities unless warranted and if so, strictly in accordance with the due procedure laid down by law”.

¶62

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and as stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader^thatas no further orders, on facts, is required in this matter, the respondents are directed to follow the interim order granted by this Court on 01.04.2016, in accordance with law. Further, interim order of this Court granted on 01.04.2016 by^thisCourtis made absolute. The petitioners are at liberty to proceed^furtherin accordance with law still they afe having any grievance.

¶63

¶64

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed^of.

¶65

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶66

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶67

shall stand closed.

¶68

//TRUE COPY//

¶69

SD/-G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTAjJJjr REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

¶70

¶71

The Principal Secretary for Home, State of Andhra Pradesh,^Secretariat of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶72

The Superintendent of Police, Nellore, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, A.P.

¶73

The Station House Officer, Vimjamur, Vinjamur (V) & (M), Nellore District, A.P.

¶74

The Principal Secretary for Revenue, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravati,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶75

The District Collector, S.P.S.R. Nellore, Nellore^{TownandDistrict.}

¶76

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Atmakur, Atmakur Mandal,^Nellore District, A.P.

¶77

The Tahsildar, Vinjamur, Vinjamur Mandal, Nellore District, A.P. 8. One CC to Sri K. Vishnu Kumar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶78

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶79

lO.Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT 11.Three C.D. Copies.

Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 18/03/2024

ORDER

WP.No.10853 of 2016

DISPOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

D.Venkataiah, Nellore Dist and 12 Others v. Prl Secy for Home, Hyd and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Venkataiah, Nellore Dist and 12 Others v. Prl Secy for Home, Hyd and 6 Others

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

P.Chandrasekhar Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bathula Sambrajyam, Vs The State of A.P.

K.S.S.B Syed Pervejuddin Hussaini Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary

Malle Naga Subbamma Vs the Assistant Commissioner

D. Dandu Srinivasa Kumara Varma, W.G. Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Home Dept., Hyd and 6 Othrs

S.Venkateswarlu S/o Bala Krishnaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh