B.Snigdha Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B.SNIGDHA REDDY,, D/O. B.ESWAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. REP. BY HER G.P. AGENT B.ESWARA REDDY, RESIDING AT D.NO.1-10-291/A, SAI SRI PADA LANE, NO.5, BRAHMANAVADI, BEGUMPET, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE, AMARAVATHI.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, AP POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, AMARAVATHI.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, TIRUPATHI.

¶16

THE S H O, EAST POLICE STATION, TIRUPATI.

¶17

B BHARATHI, W/O V.KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 101, VENNELA RESIDENCY, KARAKAMBADI ROAD, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶18

MUNI, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. RESIDING AT D.NO.3-89/20-12, NEAR SURYA TEJA APARTMENTS, KOTHAPALEM LAYOUT, TIRUCHANOOR, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶19

K SRINIVASA RAJU, S/O LATE K.SUBBARAMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. RESIDING AT VIDYANIKETHAN, RAVINDRANAGAR,

¶20

2

¶21

AKKAYAPALLI, ONTIMITTA MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶22

T SATHYANARAYANA, S/O T.SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. RESIDING AT D.NO.L9-3-LB, A8, GARUDADRI NAGAR, KAIKALA CHERUVU RENIGUNTA, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶23

MURALI, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT D.NO.L9-3-LB, A8, GARUDADRI NAGAR, KAIKALA CHERUVU RENIGUNTA, TIRUPATI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.VMR LEGAL

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR HOME

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

3

¶31

ORDER :

¶32

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶33

India seeking the following relief:

¶34

“… to issue a writ more particularly in the form of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners private lands upto an extent of 3360 Sq.ft in Sy.No.2, Tirupathi District (previously Chittoor District), Tirupathi Sub-District, Tirupati Urban Mandal, No.29, Tirupati Village Accounts, Tirupati Town, Municipal Ward No. 19, Kaikalacheruvu area, with an ulterior motive to favour the 5th to 9th respondents is as per se illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, without power of authority and opposed to the Articles 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and to consequentially direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said lands…”

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant

¶36

Government Pleader.

¶37

The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that, at the behest of Respondents 5 to 9, the Respondent police have interfered in the civil dispute between the Petitioner and the unofficial Respondents in O.S.No.623 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, without following due process of law.

¶38

Per contra, Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submits that the police never interfered in any civil dispute between the Petitioner and the unofficial Respondents.

¶39

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and recording the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the Respondents not to interfere further in the civil

¶40

dispute in view of the pendency of the civil suit between the Petitioner and the unofficial Respondents.

¶41

4

¶42