N.Bal Reddy v. Division , Cyberabad, Commissionerate Kushaiguda, R.R.District
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 16 Jun 2004
- Bench
- S ANANDA REDDY
Outcome
Disposed of
writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 16th June, 2004 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //True Copy// SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Assistant Commissioner of Police Malkajgiri Division , Cyberabad, Commissionerate Kushaiguda, R.R.District 2 The C.I. of police , P.S.Kushaiguda…
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.BAL REDDY, ADVOCATE Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : None appeared The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the action of respondents 1 to 3 in interfering with the alleged possession of the petitioners in respect of land situated in Survey Nos.34C, 35A, 36, 37A, 38B admeasuring about Ac.40.20 guntas at Kundapally (V), Keesara (M), R.R. District.
According to the petitioners, there are civil disputes with reference to the above property as occupancy certificate was issued to some third parties under the provisions of A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Petitioners along with some other persons, O.S.No.22 of 1994 for partition and separate possession and it is stated that the said suit was decreed among 13 persons who were the parties to the said suit and they were put in separate possession. However, at the instance of the fourth respondent, respondents 1 to 3 are interfering. It is also stated at the time of hearing that the petitioners have approached this Court on an earlier occasion by way of W.P.No.19134 of 2003 which was disposed of by this Court on 25.09.2003 in which, even a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the official respondents stating that they are not interfering. But, however, the repeated allegation of the petitioners is that the official respondents are interfering and driving them to attend the Police station of respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, the petitioners have come up with the present writ petition and sought for a direction to the official respondents not to interfere and not to call them to the police station.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Home.
Admittedly, the disputes, if any, relates to the land of an extent of Ac.40.20 guntas referred to earlier and the said dispute is admittedly a civil dispute with which respondents 1 to 3 have no concern and it is not the case of anybody that any of the parties to the dispute have approached respondents 1 to 3 seeking their assistance. Even if any of the parties to the dispute approaches respondents 1 to 3, it is not for them to interfere unless is an order directing respondents 1 to 3 to give protection to any of the parties to the dispute.
Under the above circumstances, respondents 1 to 3 are directed not to interfere with the disputed property of an extent of Ac.40.20 guntas situated in Survey Nos. 34C, 35A, 36, 37A, 38B at Kundapally (V), Keesara (M), R.R. District. The official respondents are also directed not to call the petitioners to the Police station with reference to the above dispute.
Operative part
With the above directions and observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 16th June, 2004 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //True Copy// SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Assistant Commissioner of Police Malkajgiri Division , Cyberabad, Commissionerate Kushaiguda, R.R.District 2 The C.I. of police , P.S.Kushaiguda, R.R.district 3 The S.I of Police , P.S.Kessara, R.R.District 4 Two CCs to Government Pleader for Home, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT) 5. 2 CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 16 Jun 2004. The bench was S ANANDA REDDY.
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.