Dismissed

V.A.S. Padma Latha v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Telangana HC14 Dec 2020WP/14378/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC by a petitioner alleging non-implementation of court orders granting police protection. The court held that the relief sought could not be granted as the writ was directed against the State and Police (respondents) not the individual declarant (respondent 4), and no opinion was expressed on rival property claims.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs. The order does not affect the petitioner's right to seek enforcement of the decree.

V.A.S. Padma Latha Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P, NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:14378 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

V.A.S. Padma Latha, W/o. K.N.Prasad, Aged about 56 years, occ. Services Rl,/o. No. H.No.9-350/6, Prashanthi Nagar, Lakshmidevipalli Gram Panchayat, Kothagudam

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (HOME) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, Badradri Kothagudem District, Kothagudem. The SHO PS, lll Town, Kothagaudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem Dlstrict

¶13

Smt. Chunchu Anjamma, W/o. Late Ch Papaiah, Aged 35 years, occ. Politics, R:/o. H. No. 4-48, Laxmidevipalli Village, Kothagudem, Badradri Kothagudern District

¶14

Battula Venkateswarlu @ Ganesh, S/o. Late Mallaiah, aged 40 years, Occ. Private, R/o. H.No. 9-1 05, Prashanthi Nagar, Laxmidevipally Village, Kothagudem, Badradri Kothagudem District

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order, direction or writ, particularly in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 and 3 on the court directions in EP No. 2/2016 in OS No. 285/2016 dated 2711012016 and subsequent directions by the MLA and others, to provide protection to the petitioner in respect of her possession and enjoyment of residentral property vide 9-350/5, 9-350/6 and 9-350/7, in an extent of about Ac. 0.19 kuntas in survey number 17148 at Prashanthi Nagar of Lakshmidevipalli, as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural^justice and consequently, direct the respondents 2 and 3 to provide the protection as per the above orders of the court EP No. 2/2016 in OS No. 28512016 daled:2711012016, in the interest of^justice.

¶17

lA NO:^'f OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to provide the protection as per the above orders of the court EP No. 2/2016 in OS No. 28512016 dated 2711012016, in respect of her possession and enjoyment of residential property vide 9-350/5, 9-350/6 and 9-350/7, in an extent of about Ac. 0.19 kuntas in survey number 17148 at Prashanthi Nagar of Lakshmidevipalli in the interest of^justice.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitigner: SRI P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.^'l to 3: AGP FOR HOME

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI R.R. KALYAN

¶22

Gounsel for the Respondent No.5: ------

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

-2-

¶25

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.14378 OF 2O2O

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for fourth respondent and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

¶29

The averments in the affidavit fi1ed in support of writ petition would disclose that petitioner has serious grievance against respondent Nos 4 and 5 alleging that they are interfering in peaceful possession and enjoyment and always threatening with dire consequences with reference to property to an extent of Ac.O.19 guntas in survey No. 17/48 at Prashanthi Nagar of Lakshmidevipalli Grampanchayat. Petitioner and others earlier Iiled O.S.No.285 of 2016 to grant perpetual injunction in respect of very same extent of land. By judgment dated 27 .O9.2016, the SubDivisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Govemment, Bhadrachalam allowed the suit and granted decree as prayed for by the petitioner. Seeking enforcement of said decree, petitioner and others fiied EP.No.2 of 2016 to grant police protection on 17.IO.2016. Orders are passed directing the Station House Officer, Police Station Laxmidevipally to extend police protection to the petitioner. Petitioner now aileges that the said orders are not complied and protection is not granted to her and unofficial respondent No.4 is interfering in possession and enjoyment of the property at the instance of fifth respondent. From the array of parties in the suit, it is seen that fourth respondent was not a defendant in the suit. As noticed above, the prayer sought in the suit was to grant perpetual injunction restraining defendant therein from interferingjn possession and enjoyment of the

¶30

-3 -

¶31

property. Thus, as fourth respondent was not,a part5r to the suit, I the decree granted in favour of petitioner against {ifth respondent is not binding on the fourth respondent. Therefore, the subsequent orders issued by the Court below in EP.No.2 of 2016 are also not binding.

¶32

From the pleadings in the affidavit filed in support of writ petition, it is seen even before institution of suit, the grievance of petitioner was against fourth respondent alleging interference by her, but for the reasons best known, petitioner did not choose to make the fourth respondent as defendant in the suit. Even now the allegation is not so much against fifth respondent, but is against the fourth respondent.

¶33

4 . In this writ petition, petitioner seeks declaration of inaction of respondent Nos 2 and 3 in complying with the direction issued in EP.No.2 of 2016. In other words, in the writ petition, though petitioner makes extensive reference to fourth respondent and makes aliegations, the prayer sought is enforcement of the orders passed in EP.No.2 of 2016, wherein the fourth respondent is not a party. Therefore, even if the relief prayed by the petitioner is granted, it does not attend to the grievance sought to be agitated by her. Further it is noticed from the averments in the affidavit filed in support of writ petition, this writ petition is instituted after long time seeking enforcement of the order in E.P.No.2 of 2016. As informed by learned counsel for the petitioner, said E.P. is pending and it appears that no further steps were taken in the said E.P. to seek further directions and it stands as it was when the orders were passed on 17.10.2016.

¶34

-4-

¶35

Learned counsel representing fourth respondent submits that petitioner has no title to the property referred to in the writ petition and revenue records do not establish her title, ownership and possession of the subject property and petitioner is making false c1aim.

¶36

This Court is not expressing opinion on rival claims and as issue is confined to alleged non-implementation of the direction issued in EP.No.2 of 2016, as noted above, the relief cannot be granted.

¶37

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, this order does not come in the way of petitioner. availing appropriate remedy as available in law to establish right, title and possession on the subject property and to seek enforcement of the decree granted in her favour vis-a-vis fifth respondent. Pending

¶38

miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶39

SD/.I.NAGALAKSHMI ASSISTANT REG'ISTRAR t\ -/ //TRUE COPY// v. SECTION OFFICER

¶40

To,

¶41

One CC to Sri. P. Rama Sharana Sharma, Advocate [OPUC]

¶42

One C.C. to Sri. R.R. Kalyan, Advocate IOPUCI

¶43

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶44

Two C.D. Copies

Prk

HIGH COURT

DATED:1411212020

ORDER

WP.No.14378 ot 2020

Dismissing the WP. without costs.

¶51

1 H E s I4
(
oo 24 I)EC?m0
a
f,-
i) .c I a

¶52

b
w)n

V.A.S. Padma Latha v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.A.S. Padma Latha v. The State of Telangana and 4 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.B.Chandrakala Vs Smt. Chitra Ramachandran, Ias.

Hussain Bin Ali Vs The State of Telangana and 9 Others

G. Naganna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh and 20 Others

Banala Sanjeeva Reddy and another Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

P. Usha Goud and 5 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 7 Others

Kasipurarn Narayana Goud Vs State of Telangana and 7 others