Dismissed

Ulabala Rama Lakshmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Feb 2024WP/9294/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenged proceedings under Sections 107 and 145 Cr.P.C. initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate regarding disputed land possession despite a pending civil suit. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cause no longer survived; the High Court dismissed both writ petitions as infructuous.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ulabala Rama Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra… — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUAR TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION Nos. 9294 AND 8095 OF 2015

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 9294 OF 2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

Ulabala Rama Lakshmi, W/o. Girija Sankar, age 27 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o. Butchempeta, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶11

Lagudu Bennayyanaidu, S/o. late Sannibabu, 52 years,^{R/o.Balligattam} Village Narasipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad - 500^004.

¶15

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional^Officer, Narsipatnam - 531 116. Visakhapatnam District.

¶16

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsipatnam Police^{Station,Narsipatnam-} 531 116, Visakhapatnam District.

¶17

Narram Koteswara Rao @ Koti, S/o. late Ramulu, aged^{about35years.} Chicken Business, R/o. K. Velama Veedhi, Narsipatnam^-531116, Visakhapatnam District.

¶18

Narram Krishna Veni, W/o. Koterswara Rao @ Koti, age 25 years, R/o. K. Velama Veedhi, Narsipatnam - 531 116. Visakhapatnam^District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in

¶21

the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more

¶22

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus^{declaringtheactionof} the 2"^^ respondent in issuing the proceedings in M.C.No.03/2015 , dt. 25.03.2015 Under Sec.145(6) of Cr.P.C. of the Sub-Divisional^Magistrate, Narsipatnam and thereby declaring the title and possession^{ofthepartiesas} to land Ac.0.60 cents covered by Survey No.382/2 of^{BaligattamVillage,} Narsipatnam Mandal ignoring the pendency of the civil suit between the parties is illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violative of the procedure prescribed U/s.145 Cr.P.C and also contrary to the precedents of the Hon'ble Apex Court and consequently direct the respondents^{nottointerfere} with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners^while directing the in res pendents 2 and 3 not to act upon the order of the proceedings M.C.No.03/2015, dt. 25.03.2015 Under Sec.145(6) of Cr.P.C. for any purpose including dispossessing the petitioners.

¶23

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 12238 OF 2015)

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to suspend the proceedings in M.C.No.03/ 2015, dt. 25.03.2015 Under Sec.145(6) of Cr.P.C. of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,^Narsipatnam, the 2 nd respondent herein, pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioners; SRI P.V.SAI RAJESH representing

¶25

SRI Y. V. ANIL KUMAR

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.2:GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4& 5: SRI A. RAVI SHANKAR

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 8095 OF 2015

¶28

Between:

¶29

Ulabala Rama Lakshmi, W/o. Girija Sankar Housewife, R/o. Butchempeta, Rolugunta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶30

Lagudu Bennayyanaidu, S/o. late Sannibabu,, R/o. Balligattam Village Narasipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶31

...PETITIONERS

¶32

AND

¶33

The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad -.500^004.

¶34

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate and. Revenue Divisional Officer, Narsipatnam - 531 116. Visakhapatnam District.

¶35

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Narsipatnam, Police Station, Narsipatnam - 531 116, Visakhapatnam District

¶36

Narram Koteswara Rao @ Koti, S/o. late Ramulu, Chicken^Business, R/o. K. Velama Veedhi, Narsipatnam - 531 116, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶37

Narram Krishna Veni, W/o. Koterswara Rao @ Koti,, R/o.^K.Velama Veedhi, Narsipatnam - 531 116. Visakhapatnam District.

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^^ respondent in entertaining the complaint of the respondents 4 and 5 and initiating the proceedings U/s.107 and 145 of Cr.PC by taking the matter on file as M.C.No.3/2015 and issuing proceedings under^Sec.111 of Cr.PC directing the petitioners to maintain the law and order during the pendency of the proceedings in the civil court in O.S.No.180^{of2014onthefileofthe} Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam is illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, violative of the provisions of Cr.PC and also violative^ofArticle21 of the Constitution of India and quash the same and consequently^directthe2nd respondent not to initiate any proceedings U/s.107^and 145 of Cr.PC and close the same as not maintainable.

¶40

¶41

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP. NO: 10681 OF 2015)

¶42

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 grant stay all further proceedings in^{MCNo.3/2015onthefile} of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narsipatnam, the 3'^'^ respondent herein including the proceedings initiated U/s. Ill of Cr.P.C., pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P.V.SAI RAJESH representing

¶44

SRI Y. V. ANIL KUMAR

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.2:GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4& 5: SRI A. RAVI SHANKAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶46

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶47

W.P.Nos.9294 and 8095 of 2015

¶48

COMMON ORDER:-

¶49

Sri P.V.Sai Rajesh, learned counsel representing Sri Y.V.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause in the present writ petitions^donot survive and have become infructuous.

¶50

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents is present.

¶51

Recording the above submission, the Writ Petitions are dismissed as Infructuous.

¶52

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶53

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if

¶54

any, shall stand closed.

¶55

¶56

//TRUE COPY/i

¶57

Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKARA RAO assistan^gistrar secti^Tofficer

¶58

¶59

One CC to Sri Y. V. Anil Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶60

One CC to Sri A. Ravi Shankar, Advocate [OPUC]

¶61

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

¶62

Two CC’s to GP for Revenue, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT]

¶63

Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:22/02/2024

COMMON ORDER

WP.Nos.9294 and 8095 of 2015

¶69

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

Ulabala Rama Lakshmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ulabala Rama Lakshmi, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Radha Krishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Thurka Tirupathamma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Devarakonda Malleswari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep By its Prl. Secretary

Narala Bal Reddy , Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bommasani Mutyala Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by Pri Secretary

Kannikanti Ganga Bhavani W/o late Koteswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh