Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sompalli Dhananjeyulu Naidu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 January, 2024
THE HONBLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI
Writ Petition No.1247 of 2024
ORDER:
This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 4 to 7 in trying to dispossess the petitioners and interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the wet land in Sy.No.420/3 to an extent of Ac.0.27 cents, in Sy.No.420/2 to an extent of Ac.0.11 ½ cents and in Sy.No.415/5 to an extent of Ac.0.69 cents in Vemuru village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District, and also trying to put the 8th respondent, who is a subsequent purchaser, contrary to the judgment and the decree dated 27-07-2023 in A.S.No.103/2013 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Tirupati, as arbitrary, illegal, for extraneous considerations, contrary to Rule of Law and also in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the wet land in Sy.No.420/3 to an extent of Ac.0.27 cents in Sy.No.420/2 to an extent of Ac.0.11 ½ cents and in Sy.No.415/5 to an extent of Ac.0.69 cents in Vemuru village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4.
3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is as follows:
The petitioners filed O.S.No.1035 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, against 2 BSB, J W.P.No.1247 of 2024 M.Kusumamba @ Kusuma, seeking specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 19.11.1997. The said suit was dismissed by decree & judgment, dated 17.07.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred appeal in A.S.No.103 of 2013 on the file of the Court of V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The said appeal was allowed, by judgment and decree, dated 27.7.2023. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred appeal before this Court in S.A.No.471 of 2023 and the same is pending adjudication. While the matter stood thus, the defendant in the suit got executed a sham and collusive settlement deed, dated 18.08.2011 in favour of K. Neeraja though the defendant is not in possession of the said property. Thereafter, the 8th respondent purchased the said property and having failed to take possession of the above said land, the 8th respondent, in collusion with the respondents No.4 to 7, is trying to interfere and dispossess the petitioners from the subject land.
4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on written instructions, submitted that M. Kusuma had executed a gift settlement deed vide document dated 18.08.2011, bequeathing an extent of Ac.0.38 ½ cents in Vemuru village revenue accounts, Tirupati Rural mandal, in the name of her daughter, K. Neeraja, towards 'pasupu kunkuma' and since then, she is in possession and 3 BSB, J W.P.No.1247 of 2024 enjoyment of the said land. While so, on 14.06.2018, K. Neeraja, along with her father and relatives went to the agricultural land located at Vemuru village for erection of stone pillars; the 2nd petitioner and others obstructed the fencing work and abused them in filthy language and on the basis of the statement of K. Neeraja, the SI of Police, Tiruchanur police station registered a case in Crime No.154 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 447, 323 and 506 IPC and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.27 of 2024. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, while denying the allegations of the petitioners, would further submit that the dispute is civil in nature between the petitioners, respondent No.8, who is the subsequent purchaser, and the complainant- Neeraja and that the police would never interfere in the civil disputes.
5. In response, learned counsel for the petitioners requested to dispose of the writ petition recording the above submission.
6. Accordingly, recording the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 30-01-2024 RAR