Maravathi Madhusudana Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010424062019

¶2

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

¶3

[3368]

¶4

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B V L N CHAKRAVARTHI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 20400/2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

MARAVATHI MADHUSUDANA RAO, S/O. LATE SESHAGIRI RAO, AGED 62 YEARS, RIO H.NO.7-15, SATTIVANIPALEM VILLAGE, PENDURTHI MANDAL,VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT AT VISAKHAPATNAM.

¶14

THE STATE HOUSE OFFICER, PENDUTHI POLICE STATION, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶15

M CHIRANJEEVI, S/O. MUNASWAMY, AGED 55 YEARS, RIO. D.NO. 56-1-27, GARVA KANCHERAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶16

M RAMA RAO, S/O. VENKAYYA, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 56-1-28, GARVA KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶17

2

¶18

G JAGAPATHIRAJU, S/O. LAKSHMANA NAIDU, AGED 58 YEARS, RIO. D.NO. 56-1-27/1, GARVA KANCHARAPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶19

B BUTTCHIBABU, S/O. RANGANNA, AGED 55 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 50-19-14, SETHAMAPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶20

G NAGABHUSANA RAO, S/O. MALLESWARI RAO, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 43-10-130, RAMURTHIPANTHULAPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶21

P SANTHI, D/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 14-38-16, RAMAJOGIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶22

N SURAYANARAYANA, S/O. APPALASWAMY, AGED 65 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.18-12-4, KUMMARA VEEDHI, MAHALPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶23

CHANDRAKA SATYAVATHI, W/O. KANTA RAO, AGED 65 YEARS, RIO. D.NO. 13-2-4, CHANDRAKA VEEDHI, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶24

KOYYA APPA RAO, S/O. YERRAIAH, AGED 75 YEARS, RIO. D.NO. 14-13-3, ANGADI DIBBA, MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶25

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶26

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of 3rd respondent in repeatedly insisting the petitioner to appear before his authority and further asking to vacate and handed over the petitioner's landed properties situated in an extent of Ac. 0.80 cents in Sy.No.371/9, Ac.1.40 Cents in Sy.No.371/10, Ac.0.58 cents in Sy.No.371/11 and Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.371/12 Narava Village in Pendurthi Mandal of Visakhapatnam District to the respondents 4 to 12, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without any authority of law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the petitioner's possession over the said properties nor his personal liberty

¶27

3

¶28

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶29

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent not to insist the petitioner to appear before his authority nor interfere in any manner with his possession and enjoyment over the petitioner landed properties situated in an extent of Ac. 0.80 cents in Sy.No.371/9, Ac.1.40 Cents in Sy.No.371/10, Ac.0.58 cents in Sy.No.371/11 and Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.371/12 Narava Village in Pendurthi Mandal of Visakhapatnam District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶31

K JYOTHI PRASAD

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶33

GP FOR HOME (AP)

¶34

The Court made the following:

¶35

4

¶36

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI

¶37

WRIT PETITION No.20400 OF 2019

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

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

¶40

“….to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of 3rd respondent in repeatedly insisting the petitioner to appear before his authority and further asking to vacate and handed over the petitioner's landed properties situated in an extent of Ac.0.80 cents in Sy.No.371/9, Ac.1.40 Cents in Sy.No.371/10, Ac.0.58 cents in Sy.No.371/11 and Ac.0.45 cents in Sy.No.371/12 Narava Village in Pendurthi Mandal of Visakhapatnam District to the respondents 4 to 12, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without any authority of law and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with the petitioner's possession over the said properties nor his personal liberty, and pass…”

¶41

Heard Sri Palanki Karteek, learned counsel representing Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Mallikarjuna Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

¶42

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on written instructions would submit that the matter relates to civil disputes as per the enquiry conducted by the police and they will not interfere in the matter. Further, basing on the report of the writ petitioner presented in the year 2022, police registered a case vide Crime No.105 of 2022 against the unofficial respondents and investigation was completed and charge sheet was also filed on 20.09.2024 on the file of the learned VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Visakhapatnam and therefore, no further orders are required in the writ petition.

¶43

The writ petition was filed alleging that police are interfering in civil matter.

¶44

5

¶45

Now the submissions made by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on written instructions would disclose that the enquiry of the police would reveal that there are civil disputes pending between the writ petitioner and the unofficial respondents and suits are also pending between both parties, and therefore, police will not interfere in the matter. However, the writ petitioner presented a report to the police in the year 2022 against the unofficial respondents, police registered a case and investigated into the same, and laid charge sheet also.

¶46

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that no further orders are required in the writ petition, and the writ petition is closed at the stage of admission, without going into merits of the case. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶48

______________________________ JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI

05.02.2026 Pmk

6

64

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI