Dismissed

Merugu Leelavathi w/o Mondaiah , Chinna Mondaiah, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.

Telangana HC14 Nov 2013WP/32663/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged seizure of land by a government officer via writ. Court held if the officer is interfering similarly to the private respondent, the petitioner should implead him in the pending civil suit instead. Petitioner constrained to common law remedy.

What did the court decide?

None granted. Writ petition dismissed; interim relief dismissed as infructuous.

Merugu Leelavathi w/o Mondaiah , Chinna Mondaiah, Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.32663 of 2013

¶3

Date:14.11.2013

¶4

Between: Merugu Leelavathi, W/o Mandaiah

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

And:

¶7

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Reptd by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and three others.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Gajanand Chakravarthi

¶10

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue

¶11

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶12

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3, in seeking to interfere with the petitioner’s possession in respect of Acs.2.36 cents of land in Survey No.102 of Naspur Village, Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District, in order to support the cause of respondent No.4, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶13

The petitioner has averred that when respondent No.4 sought to interfere with her possession of the above-mentioned land, she has filed O.S.No.218 of 2012 in the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mancherial for permanent injunction and in I.A.No.1144 of 2012, she has secured an order of temporary injunction on 05.07.2013 against respondent No.4. The petitioner alleged that in order to circumvent the order of interim injunction, respondent No.4 has prevailed upon

¶14

respondent No.3 who has been trying to dispossess the petitioner.

¶15

In my opinion, the petitioner has a similar grievance against respondent No.3 as she has against respondent No.4. As noted above, the petitioner has already approached the competent civil Court to prevent respondent No.4 from interfering with her possession of the above-mentioned land. If respondent No.3 is also causing similar interference, there is no reason why the petitioner does not implead him also in the said suit and claim a similar relief as she has claimed against respondent No.4. Even if respondent No.3 is a Government servant, he is equally amenable to the jurisdiction of the competent civil Court as any other private individual is. As the petitioner has already invoked the common law remedy by filing a civil suit, it does not stand to reason why she does not subject respondent No.3 also to the proceeding which she has already initiated.

¶16

Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶17

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.40620 of 2013 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

¶18

____________________________ JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY 14^th November, 2013 DR

Merugu Leelavathi w/o Mondaiah , Chinna Mondaiah, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Merugu Leelavathi w/o Mondaiah , Chinna Mondaiah, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.

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

Miss Jayanthi Bisai Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Malla Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Joseph Sriharsha Mary Indraja Educational Society Vs The National Council for Teacher Education

Smt. Zaheera Begum Vs The State Government of A.P.

K. Venkat Rao Vs The Collector, Kurnool District, Kurnool.

Sri J.L.Narasimham, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh