Dismissed

Sri Nagothi Nagaraju , Naga Rao, v. The Government of A.P.

Telangana HC15 Jul 2014WP/15930/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge examined Writ Petition seeking Mandamus against police interference in a civil property dispute. Petitioner alleged pressure to sell vacant site by absent third parties and respondent SHO. Court dismissed petition due to nonjoinder of necessary parties and lack of evidence supporting alleged interference by police respondent.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sri Nagothi Nagaraju , Naga Rao, Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

The Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar

¶2

Writ Petition No.15930 of 2014

¶3

Dated 15.07.2014

¶4

Order:

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to direct the respondents not to interfere in civil disputes between him and third parties and to take appropriate action against three persons viz., V.Appa Rao, A.Laxman Rao and Smt.A.Laxmi and their men.

¶6

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.

¶7

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of vacant site admeasuring Ac.0-71 cents in Survey No.210/14, Revallapalem Village, Madhurawada, Chinagadili Mandal, Visakhapatnam, by virtue of an unregistered will executed by his paternal uncle. It is his grievance that, with the support of respondent No.2- Station House Officer, Potulamallaiahpalem Police Station, the above named three persons have been pressurizing him to sell the said site to them.

¶8

It is noteworthy that the above named three persons, against whom relief is sought, have not been impleaded in the present Writ Petition and hence, the

¶9

Writ Petition prima facie suffers from nonjoinder of proper and necessary parties.

¶10

In so far as the allegation against respondent No.2 is concerned, the learned Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, stated that as of now neither any complaint in this regard is lodged by the petitioner against the persons named supra nor he was, at any time, summoned to the Police Station and threatened to register his site as alleged. Ultimately, the learned Government Pleader submitted that respondent No.2 has never interfered in civil disputes much less the dispute between the petitioner and third parties.

¶11

Having regard to the categorical statement made by the learned Government Pleader for Home on the alleged interference of respondent No.2 in civil dispute, and as the allegations made by the petitioner are found to be wholly unsubstantiated, I am not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition.

¶12

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶13

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶14

_____________________

¶15

(Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J)

¶16

Date: 15^th July, 2014 lur

Sri Nagothi Nagaraju , Naga Rao, v. The Government of A.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nagothi Nagaraju , Naga Rao, v. The Government of A.P.

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

Vakiti Ram Reddy, Vs The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District

Pendyala Bhaskar Rao, Vs The State of Telangana

Talari Ramadevi Vs The REvenue Divisional Officer

Thimmakka, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Panyam Ashok Kumar, Vs The Station House Officer

V.S.Srinivasulu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh