Writ petition regarding alleged interference with land closed when police registered an FIR against respondents after receiving a complaint.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.30240 of 2015
ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioner was that the police authorities were not receiving his complaints dated 04.09.2015 and 08.09.2015 or taking action against respondents 4 to 6 in relation to the illegal interference with his land admeasuring Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.372/2 of Kapuluppada Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. This interference was alleged to be at the instigation of the sixth respondent. A consequential direction was sought to the police authorities to take action on the complaints given by the petitioner and his workers against respondents 4 to 6 and a further direction to respondents 3 to 6 not to interfere with the petitioner’s land.
Basing on the written instructions dated 23.09.2015 received from the SubInspector of Police, Bheemili Police Station, Visakhapatnam City, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home informed this Court that the petitioner sent a complaint by registered post against the sixth respondent alleging that while his men were working in the subject land, some people tried to enter into the land and threatened his workers saying that the land belonged to the sixth respondent. Upon receiving the said complaint, Crime No.219 of 2015 was registered on the file of Bheemunipatnam Police Station under Sections 379, 447 and 506 I.P.C. and investigation was taken up. A copy of the FIR No.219 of 2015 dated 21.09.2015 is produced and reflects that the said crime was registered against the sixth respondent and two others.
In the light of this development, the grievance of the petitioner stands settled and no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly closed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.
JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
7th October, 2015
IBL
PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS 4 TO 6
SANJAY KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
