Writ Petition No. 25519 of 2009 · Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the admission
Provisions considered
Judgment
The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of various extents of land situated in Survey Nos.181-A, 174-1, 174-4 and 174-3 of Kota Revenue Village, K.Gangavaram Mandal, East Godavari District and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for the last ten years, having purchased the same in the name of his wife, the fifth respondent. He states that after sometime, certain disputes have arisen between him and the fifth respondent, resulting in registering a case by the fifth respondent under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also a case in Crime No.117 of 2008 under Section 498-A IPC. The petitioner has narrated several incidents/proceedings that ensued between him and the fifth respondent. While so, the petitioner states that as respondent Nos.3 to 5 are likely to take away the crop harvested by him in the subject lands, he claims to have made representations to respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking police protection enabling him to harvest the crop in the subject lands, but in vain. Hence, he filed the present writ petition seeking appropriate directions in this regard. This Court issued notice before admission on 25.11.2009 and adjourned the matter for the instructions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced written instructions, wherein it is stated that if the petitioner gets orders from the revenue officials, then only the second respondent would be in a position to give the protection as sought. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Though the petitioner has narrated so many facts bringing to the notice of this Court the necessity in seeking police protection for harvesting the crop in the subject lands, the fact remains that there are disputes between the petitioner and his wife, the fifth respondent. If he has any apprehension that respondent Nos.3 to 5 would take away the crop harvested by him, he ought to have approached appropriate forum seeking directions in that regard, but certainly writ petition is not a remedy. The remedy of the petitioner is elsewhere. In the
Operative part
circumstances, I do not see any grounds to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the admission stage, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority for redressal of his grievance. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:24.06.2010 VGB
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, at the admission
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.