Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mr. N. Prabhakar Naidu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 6 May, 2022
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durgaprasad Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGAPRASAD RAO
WRIT PETITION No.5769 of 2022
ORDER:
The petitioner prays for writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondents 2 to 5, particularly respondent No.2 in not considering the representations dated 17.01.2022 and 14.02.2022 of the petitioner to provide police aid for implementing the decree and judgment dated 16.11.2000 in O.S.No.60/2000 and also the orders dated 20.09.2021 in W.P.No.20645/2021 by restraining the respondents 6 to 8 in interfering with the agricultural operations of the petitioner in his lands in Sy.No.139 of Ramannagaripalli Village, SPSR Nellore District as arbitrary and consequently to issue direction to respondent No.2 to provide police aid.
2. Petitioner's case succinctly is thus:
(a) Petitioner succeeded Ac.3.20 cents in Sy.No.139 of Ramannagaripalli Village from his father apart from other lands. His wife got Ac.1.30 cents in Sy.No.139 by way of registered sale deed. Further, the petitioner got Ac.0.10 cents from his aunt Nagineni Parvathamma as a gift. While so, misunderstandings arose between the families of the petitioner and his uncle. When they caused obstruction to petitioner's cultivation, the petitioner filed O.S.No.60/2000 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gudur against Nagineni Penchalamma and others and after contest, the said suit was decreed. No appeal was preferred and hence the decree was confirmed. Thus the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment 2 of aforesaid lands and the title deeds and pattadar passbooks were also issued in his favour.
(b) While so, the total extent of the land in Sy.No.139 is Ac.9.88 cents and same was not sub-divided but respective owners are enjoying their extents, the petitioner requested M.R.O., Kaluvoy Mandal to make sub-division and fix boundaries in respect of petition schedule lands. On their advise he filed F-line application however they dragged on the matter.
So the petitioner filed W.P.No.20645/2021 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 20.09.2021. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner approached mandal surveyor. Knowing the same respondent No.8 locked the gates and did not allow them to enter the land. One S. Srinivasulu instigated her in this regard. The petitioner approached S.I. of Police, Kaluvoy PS and complained about highhanded action of the 8th respondent but he did not take any action. The petitioner also made a representation to Mandal Tahsildar, Kaluvoy and requested to implement the order in W.P.No.20645/2021. However due to locking of the gates they were unable to implement the order. The petitioner approached the Superintendent of Police and made a representation dated 17.01.2022 and he directed the 4th respondent to look into the matter. The 4th respondent summoned the petitioner and 8th respondent and questioned her right. Though she claimed to have got documentary right but she did not produce. She has been preventing the petitioner from entering into their lands and not allowing to supply water and spray the pesticides to the lemon trees. Hence the writ petition.
3
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appeared for official respondents 1 to 5. Notice were sent to unofficial respondents 6 to
8. Respondent No.6 refused to receive the notice and hence service was deemed under law. Notice could not be served on respondent No.7 as he was out of station. Respondent No.8 received notice but there was no representation.
4. Heard Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondents 1 to 5.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his pleadings in the writ petition and submitted that unless police aid is granted it will be difficult for him to attend the watering and fumigating operation to his lemon garden.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the respondent police would follow the direction of this Court.
7. A perusal of the material papers produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition would show that the petitioner was granted pattadar passbooks and title deeds by the M.R.O. Kaluvoy in respect of different lands including the land in an extent of Ac.3.20 cents in Sy.No.139. Then the copy of judgment in O.S.No.60/2000, dated 16.11.2000 shows that learned Junior Civil Judge, Gudur decreed the said suit in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents 6 and 7 herein and one Nagineni Ramaiah in respect of the suit schedule property of Ac.4.50 cents of lemon 4 garden in Sy.No.139 in patta No.95 of Ramannagaripalli Village, Kaluvoy Mandal. That apart, the petitioner filed Form-1B issued by Tahsildar, Kaluvoy Mandal in respect of Ac.3.20 cents of land in Sy.No.139. Form- 1B was also issued in favour of petitioner's wife Nagineni Vydehi for Ac.1.30 cents of land in Sy.No.139. Then the copy of judgment in W.P.No.20645/2021 shows that the petitioner and his wife Nagineni Vydehi have filed the said writ petition in respect of Ac.4.50 cents of land in Sy.No.139 seeking a direction to respondents 4 and 5 to fix the boundaries by effecting the sub-division and the said writ petition was allowed granting liberty to the petitioners to make an appropriate application through Mee-Seva.
8. Thus the above documents would show that the petitioner and his wife are owners to an extent of Ac.4.50 cents in Sy.No.139 of Ramannagaripalli Village of Kaluvoy Mandal. The grievance of the petitioner is that the unofficial respondents are not coming forward for sub- division of land in Sy.No.139 and on the other hand they put hurdles to the Revenue Authorities to make sub-division pursuant to the orders in W.P.No.20645/2021, by putting lock to the gates. Though the 8 th respondent claims to have got some right in the disputed land, she did not produce any document before the authorities. Be that it may, in the present writ petition also the respondents 6 to 8 did not appear to contest the writ petition. The Civil Court's decree in O.S.No.60/2000 is in favour of the petitioner in respect of the subject land.
5
9. Coming to legal aspect, when a Competent Court grants a decree in favour of a person it is bounden duty of the police to extend protection to decree holder to enjoy the fruits of decree without any threat from the defendant or his henchmen. When the police refuse to extend such protection in spite of the decree the constitutional Court can issue direction in that regard. In the order dated 04.05.2022 in W.P.No.10178/2022 this Court has extensively dealt with the aspect of granting police aid for implementation of Civil Court's decree and held that the Civil Court U/s 151 CPC and High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India can, in suitable cases direct the police to extend protection for implementation of injunction decree or order.
10. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and respondents 2 to 5 are directed to extend police aid to the petitioner in the matter of implementation of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.60/2000 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gudur and also the order dated 20.09.2021 in W.P.No.20645/2021 by considering the representations dated 17.01.2022 and 14.02.2022 submitted by the petitioner. No costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending for consideration shall stand closed __________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 06.05.2022 krk 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO W.P No.5769 of 2022 06th May, 2022 krk