M/s. Masetty Jaganmohan Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Jan 2024WP/33162/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed a writ petition filed in 2014 seeking to stop police interference in a civil dispute over an Agreement of Sale. The Court held that granting the relief after ten years was not feasible, advising the petitioner to approach the civil court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed without order as to costs. Interlocutory application stands closed.

M/s. Masetty Jaganmohan Rao, Vs The State of… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 33162 OF 2014

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Masetty Jaganmohan Rao, S/o. Rajagopala Rao, Aged about 43 years, Business Flat No.S-2, Sudha Towers, 0pp. Seetaramaiah School, Lakshmipuram, Guntur

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶11

The Superintendent of Police, Guntur, Guntur District. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Arandalpet, Guntur^{GunturDistrict} 4. The Station House Officer, Arandalpet, Guntur Guntur^District

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

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 or order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in interfering with the civil dispute in respect of the Agreement of Sale^{dated07.07.2014between} me and Vemuri Subba Rao and Nallam Siva Prasad, is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶14

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 41484 OF 2014)

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to interfere with the civil dispute with regard to the land in respect of the Agreement of Sale dated 07.07.2014 between me and Vemuri Subba Rao and Nallam Siva Prasad, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PALAPARTHI PRABHAKAR representing SRI GHANTA SRIDHAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶20

Writ Petition No.33162 of 2014

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶23

“....declaring the action of Respondents in interfering with the civil dispute in respect of the Agreement of Sale dated 07.07.2014 between the petitioner and Vemuri Subba Rao and Nallam Siva Prasad, is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and to pass such other order or orders ”

¶24

¶25

¶26

Heard Mr.Palaparthi Prabhakar, learned counsel.

¶27

represented on behalf of Mr.Ghanta Sridhar, learned^counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government^Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents.

¶28

¶29

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that he has no instructions from the respondents with regard to alleged interference of police with the alleged civil dispute between the petitioner, one Vemuri Subba^Rao and Nallam Siva Prasad.

¶30

This is an old writ petition of the year 2014. So, it appears that the cause of action arises in the year^2014. As such, considering the same cause of action at this juncture

¶31

¶32

after lapse of ten (10) years directing the respondent-police not to interfere in the civil dispute, is not feasible. However, if at all, the petitioner is still having any grievance,^hehasto approach the competent civil Court for redressal of his grievance.

¶33

With the above observation, the Writ petition is closed. No order as to costs.

¶34

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending.

¶35

shall stands closed.

¶36

Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

OFFICER

To,

One CC to Sri Ghanta Sridhar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶41

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

¶42

Three CD Copies. ;

ssb gl

HIGH COURT

•n-'.

DATED:22/01/2024

ORDER

WP.No.33162 of 2014

CLOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

M/s. Masetty Jaganmohan Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Masetty Jaganmohan Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Allam Polaiah, S/o. late Sankaraiah, Vs The Superintendent of Police, Spsr Nellore District

Eluru Narayana Vs The Superintendent of Police

V. Radha, Vs Pallagolla Venkata Lakshmamma

Garapati Vykuntam Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Adapa Latchi Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Eragam Srinivasula Reddy S/o Late Eragam Peddangi Reddy Vs The Govt. of A.P.