Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chukka Sridevamma vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 17 September, 2019
Author: G. Shyam Prasad
Bench: G. Shyam Prasad
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.13244 OF 2019
ORDER:
This is a Writ of Mandamus filed for a direction to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 seeking to implement the injunction order granted by this Court in S.A.M.P.No.634 of 2009 in Second Appeal No.289 of 2009, vide Order dated 28-04-2009, by restraining the un-official respondent-Tiyala Narayana from trespassing into the agricultural land of the petitioner in an extent of Ac.7-72 cents in Sy.No.426, 427 and 428 of Sangamvalasa village, Parvathipuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.
2. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home.
3. The grand mother of the petitioner herein and two others filed a suit O.S.No.97 of 1991 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, for declaration of title over the plaint 'B' schedule land and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the part 'B' schedule property. The suit has been decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs declaring their title in respect of the Part 'B' schedule land and also granting permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 19 and out of them, Defendant No.14 is the Respondent No.4 in this Writ Petition.
4. The case of the petitioner is that Respondent No.4 is interfering with her possession and trying to dispossess her in spite of injunction orders, which are in her favour. A.S.No.1 of 2 2004 is filed by the Respondent No.4 herein and others against the Plaintiffs and the Government. A.S.No.5 of 2004 is filed by the State, represented by the District Collector, Vizianagaram and Mandal Revenue Officer, Parvathipuram, against the defendants before the Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram by Common Judgment dated 19.08.2008, allowed A.S.Nos.1 of 2004 and 5 of 2004, setting aside the decree and judgment dated 15-09-2003 passed in O.S.No.97 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram. The Judgment of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, has been set aside by the learned Senior Civil Judge, in the first appeal. Against which, Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs before this court, wherein interim order of stay has been granted.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that, in spite of the injunction Orders granted in her favour, Respondent No.4 is trying to interfere with her possession and enjoyment. Therefore, she lodged a complaint before the police seeking police protection for implementation of the Orders of injunction in her favour.
06. This is a case of reversal finding. Admittedly there are civil disputes pending before the civil courts between the parties. The remedy of the petitioner in respect of trespass is to lodge a criminal complaint to police. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to file a complaint before the police whenever there is interference in her possession. The said complaint would get support of the order of injunction in her favour. On such complaint, the police shall consider the same, in accordance with law.
3
7. In the light of the facts and circumstances of this case, the police have to consider the complaint in the light of the Judgment in Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors1, and register a complaint and investigate.
8. The learned Government Pleader submits that as the complaint dated 13-08-2019 was civil in nature, it was not considered by the police. Since the injunction Order is in favour of the petitioner, she has lodged a complaint before the police. It is the duty of the police to consider whether the ingredients in the complaint attract any offence to take cognizance for registering the complaint. Therefore, Respondent No.3 is directed to follow guidelines in Lalitha Kumari's case referred above, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
10. With these observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in the writ petition shall also stand closed.
_______________________ G. SHYAM PRASAD,J Date: 17-09-2019 Note: Issue CC by 19-09-2019 Arr/Eha 1 2014 (2) SCC 1 4 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.13244 OF 2019 Date: 17-09-2019 Arr