The Court held that since an interim order existed in WP No.17020 of 2013 with the SHO as a party, no fresh writ petition was necessary to enforce that order against the police regarding land acquisition matters.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITON No.25053 of 2018
ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondentpolice are not taking action on his complaint dated 30-06-2018 to implement the orders of respondents 2 and 4 issued in proceedings No.Rc.No.E2/4890/98, dated 19-06-2013 and Rc.No.356/2018, dated 21-06-2018 in Sy.No.740-3 an extent of Ac.5-15 of Budili polam of Gorantla Mandal, Anantapur District.
Admittedly, the petitioner has interim order in his favour in WP.No.17020 of 2013, in which the Station House Officer, Gorantla, Ananthapur District, who is the 5th respondent herein, is already a party. If there is any violation of said order, it is open for the petitioner to take appropriate action, but there is no need for him to file another writ petition in respect of same issue.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel
to the disposal of this petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J
23-08-2018 Nvl
2
3
Petitioner
Respondent Police (or similar party representing the police force)
A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
