Cuddapah v. Ramakrishna Colony, Akkayapalli Village, Cuddapah District
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
averment in the counter, by the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 145
Judgment
Cause title
1 The Superintendent of Police, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 3 The Circle Inspector of Police, Chinnachowk Police Station, Cuddapah, 4 The Circle Inspector of Police, 1st Floor, Taluk Police Station, Cuddapah. 5 Smt. D. Chand Begum, W/o. Late S. Sardar Khan, R/o. D.No. 9-14, Ravindra Nagar, Ramakrishna Colony, Akkayapalli Village, Cuddapah Dt. 6 D.K. Hameed Khan, S/o. Late S. Sardar Khan,R/o. Ravindra Nagar, Ramakrishna Colony, Akkayapalli Village, Cuddapah District. 7 D.K. Nawaz Khan, S/o. Late S. Sardar Khan, R/o. Ravindra Nagar, Ramakrishna Colony, Akkayapalli Village, Cuddapah District. 8 D.K. Ahmed Khan, S/o. late S. Sardar Khan, R/o. Ravindra Nagar, Ramakrishna Colony, Akkayapalli Village, Cuddapah District. 9 Smt. Noor Jahan Begum, D/o. Late S. Sardar Khan,R/o. Ravindra Nagar, Ramakrishna Colony, Akkayapalli Village, Cuddapah District. 10 Smt. Sufiya Begum @ Mallika, D/o. Late S. Sardar Khan, R/o. Ravindra Nagar, Ramakrishna Colony, Akkayapalli Village, Cuddapah District. ....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein in interfering with our peaceful possession and enjoyment over the land in an extent of Ac.1.21cents in sy.no.31/3 and 31/2 and an extent of Ac. 2.63 cents in Sy.No.35/A & 35-7C, Situated at Putlampalli fields, Putlampalli Village, Cuddapah Mandal, Cuddapah District respectively belongs to the petitioners as highly highhanded, arbitrary, illegal and violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners under articles 14, 19(1) (g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent 1 to 4 not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment over the land in an extent of Ac. 1.21 cents in Survey Nos. 31/3 & 31/2 and an extent of Ac. 2.63 cents in Sy.Nos. 35/A & 35-7C, situated Putlampalli fields, Putlampalli village, Cuddapah Mandal, Cuddapah District, respectively belongs to the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.R.REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following : ::
ORAL ORDER ::
Operative part
The writ petition is filed complaining that the respondents 1 to 4 are interfering with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of land of Ac.1.21 cts, in Sy.Nos. 31/3 & 31/2 and Ac.2.63 cts, in Sy.Nos. 35/A & 35-7C of Putlampalli fields, Putlampalli Village, Cuddapah District, at the instance of the respondents 5 to 10. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that he had enquired into the complaint of the petitioners in detail and the said enquiry revealed existence of disputes between two communities – Reddys and Muslims, in that locality, that the 7th respondent had approached the then Superintendent of Police with a representation which was endorsed to the Inspector of Police (R4) with instructions to enquire into the matter. Thereafter the 2nd and 4th respondents called the petitioners and the unofficial respondents 5 to 10, enquired into areas of disputes between them and advised the parties to await the outcome of pending civil litigation. Despite such advice to maintain peace, there was some breach of law and order consequent on a scuffle between the parties. As such prohibitory orders u/Sec.145 Cr.PC were issued and both the parties restricted from entering into the lands in question till disposal of the civil litigation. The answering respondent further states that apart from the above there was no other interference by the official respondents and that the allegation that the respondents 2 to 4 abused the petitioners in filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences, is false. In view of the categorical denial of the petitioners’ allegations and no rebuttal to this averment in the counter, by the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Dated: 04.07.2005 ------------------------ Pvsn Justice G. Raghuram ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Superintendent of Police, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 2 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 3 The Circle Inspector of Police, Chinnachowk Police Station, Cuddapah, 4 The Circle Inspector of Police, 1st Floor, Taluk Police Station, Cuddapah. 5 Two CCs to the GP for Home, High Court buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 6 2 CD copies
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: averment in the counter, by the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 145.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 04 Jul 2005. The bench was GODA RAGHURAM.
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.