Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kalineedi Venkateswara Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 7 January, 2022
Author: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT amaravat ne (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) NENG FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY WRIT PETITION NO: 22951 OF 2021 . Between: 1. Kalineedi Venkateswara Rao, S/o Veeraswamy, Aged about 52 years, R/o Sriramavaram Village, T.Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. 2. Kalineedi Sampath Kumar, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 32 years, R/o Sriramavaram Village, T.Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. ..Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Velagapudi at Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Eluru, West Godavari District. 3. The Deputy Superintendent of police, Jangareddy Gudem, West Godavari District. 4. The Station House Officer, T. Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. 9. Nomula Reddeyya, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Aged 55 years,Occ. Agriculture, R/o RKR Gudem Village, T.Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. 6. Nomula Nageswara Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Aged 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o RKR Gudem Village, T.Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2to4, in not providing the police aid protection to safeguard the crop from the unofficial respondents and their henchmen and considering my representation dated 30-09-2021 as illegal, arbitrary against the settled principles of law and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to provide police aid and to the petitioners in an extent of Ac.17.95 cents in Rs No.654/2 to an extent of AC. 11-32 cents in, Rs No.642/2 to an extent of Ac.2.75 Cents, Rs No.654/1 to an extent of Ac.2.85 Cents and in Rs No.654 to an extent of Ac.1.07 cents in situated at hamlet of Rudrakota Rajagudem in T. Narsapuram Village and Mandal in West Godavari District and the restrain the unofficial respondent and their henchman from trying to interfering petitioner peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property. IA. No. 1 of 2021: Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent 2 to 4 to provide police aid to the petitioner in an extent of Ac.17.95 cents in Rs No.654/2 to an extent of AC. 11-32 cents in, Rs No.642/2 to an extent of Ac.2.75 Cents, Rs No.654/1 to an extent of Ac.2.85 Cents and in Rs No.654 to an extent of Ac.1.07 cents in situated at hamlet of Rudrakota Rajagudem in T. Narsapuram Village and Mandal in West Godavari District and the restrain the unofficial respondent and their henchman from trying to interfering my peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property, pending disposal of WP No.22951 of 2021, on the file of the High Court. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and affidavit filed herein and Order of High Court dated 20-10-2021 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Nagaraju Pullagura, Advocate for the Petitioners and GP for Home for Respondent Nos.1 to 4, the Court made the following ORDER:
At request of learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 for filing counter-affidavit, post the matter after four (04) weeks. There has been a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the petitioners passed in O.S.No.6 of 2010 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi against the respondents 5 and 6, whereby they were restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the suit schedule mentioned property. It is the case of the petitioners that despite the said decree of permanent injunction, that the respondents 5 and 6 have been interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the property. Although learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 submits that an appeal was preferred against the said decree and judgment, admittedly no stay was passed against the said judgment and decree. Therefore, as long as the said permanent injunction decree is in force, the same has to be respected and it has to be implemented effectively. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the respondent-police officials to provide police aid to the petitioners for effective implementation of the permanent injunction decree, till the next date of hearing AL.
SD/- K.TATA RAO / op IITRUE COPYI// _ _DEPUTYREGISTRAR For 4 OESTIO OFFICER To, :
1. The Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, Velagapudi at Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Eluru, West Godavari District.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of police, Jangareddy Gudem, West Godavari District.
4. The Station House Officer, T. Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District.
5. Nomula Reddeyya, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Aged 55 years,Occ. Agriculture, R/o RKR Gudem Village, T.Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District.
6. Nomula Nageswara Rao, S/o Venkateswara Rao, Aged 50 years, Occ.
Agriculture, R/o RKR Gudem Village, T.Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavari District.
7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati (OUT)
8. One CC to Sri Pullagura Nagaraju, Advocate (OPUC)
9. One spare copy sSkm HIGH COURT CMR,J DATED:20/10/2021 ORDER WP.No.22951 of 2021 DIRECTION ANDY OVAL Ce, ' £ an 4 As