Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
N V R Krishna vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 13 August, 2020
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.11589 of 2020
ORDER:(Heard through BlueJeans video conferencing App).
1) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the action of respondent authorities in interfering with the possession of petitioners' house bearing D.No.1-47-93 in 700 Sq. yards with vacant site, situated at Gollagudem Centre, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, at the instance of 8th respondent, who has civil disputes with the petitioners, as illegal, arbitrary and also violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India; and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to conduct enquiry on the complaint made against the 6th and 7th respondents by the petitioners on 01.07.2020 and take necessary action against them and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to interfere with the civil disputes pending between the petitioners and the 8th respondent in respect of the above said house property, and pass such other order.
2) The case of petitioners is that, the petitioners owned a house bearing D.No.1-47-93 in 700 Sq. yards with vacant site, situated at Gollagudem Centre, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. The said house property originally belonged to petitioners' paternal grandmother by name Bandreddi Venkayamma. The said Venkayamma settled the said property to the petitioners' father late Bandreddi Gangao Rao through a registered gift settlement deed vide document No.2896/1972 on 24.10.1972. Since then, the petitioners' father became the absolute owner and he had been living in the said house with his family without any hindrance from 2 anybody by paying property tax, water tax and electricity charges. During the life time of petitioners' father, he settled the said property in favour of the petitioners' mother by name Bandreddi Lakshmi creating life interest with vested reminder to the petitioners through a registered settlement deed vide document No.1950/1978 dated 30.06.1978. After the death petitioners' father, the subject property has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners' mother Bandreddi Lakshmi.
3) After the death of petitioners' father, in the year 1983, the sons of Bandreddi Apparao, who is the brother of Bandireddy Ganga Rao, approached the petitioners' mother and demanded her to give half share in the subject property alleging that Bandreddi Venkayamma executed a settlement deed in favour of the petitioners' father and their father. On that, the petitioners' mother took a copy of the said documents from them and came to know that Bandreddi Apparao, who is the eldest son of Venkayamma unilaterally got cancelled the registered gift settlement deed vide document No.2896/1972, dated 24.10.1972 and executed a new settlement deed in favour of petitioners' father and his brother by coercion and undue influence.
4) Moreover, as on the date of unilateral cancellation of settlement deed and execution of new gift deed, the said Venkayamma was bedridden due to paralysis. On that, the petitioners' mother Bandreddi Lakshmi and the petitioners filed a suit for declaration in O.S.No.138/1984 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. The said suit was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners and their mother filed A.S.No.300/2006 on the file of this Court against the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.138/1984 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem 3 and the same is pending for disposal. Meanwhile, the petitioners' mother died in the year 2010 and the petitioners succeeded to the subject property by virtue of registered settlement deed vide document No.1950/1978, dated 30.06.1978 executed by the petitioners' father.
5) While the things stood thus, on 01.05.2005, the 8th Respondent gave a publication in Andhra Jyothi Telugu Daily through his counsel stating that the 7th respondent purchased the undivided share of legal-heirs of Bandreddi Appa Rao i.e., 280 Sq. Yards out of 560 Sq. Yards in the subject property and further stated that he entered into an agreement with them. So, if anyone has objections same may be brought to his notice. After noticing the said publication the petitioners got issued a legal notice dated 03.05.2005 through their counsel by raising serious allegations informing the 8th respondent that any transaction that has been done with regard to the subject property is not binding upon them.
6) After receipt of said notice, the 8th respondent has got issued reply notice on 11.05.2005 through his counsel with false allegations and completely ignored the objections raised by them. The 8th respondent with a malafide intention to grab the property got registered 280 Sq. yards of undivided share out of 700 Sq. yards vide document No.2331/2005, dated 04.05.2005. As on the date of registration of the said registered sale deed, the subject property has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. Subsequent to the registration of said sale deed, the 8th respondent herein impleaded himself as Respondent No.14 in A.S.No.300 of 2006 on the file of this Court stating that he purchased the subject property and as such he is a necessary party to the proceedings pending before this Court. 4
7) The 8th respondent herein has also filed O.S.No.80/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem for partition of the subject property basing on the registered sale deed vide document No.2331/2005. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a stay petition under Section 10 CPC for stay of all further proceedings in the above suit vide I.A.No.1714/2020 and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed C.R.P.No.3108 of 2014 on the file of this Court against the dismissal order in the above interlocutory application. The petitioners have also filed CRP MP.No.4264 of 2014 in the above CRP for interim stay of all further proceedings including trial in O.S.No.80 of 2006 in which this Court was pleased to grant stay on 20.03.2015 until further orders. Now, the said CRP is pending before this Court.
8) While the matter stood thus, as the petitioners' house is in dilapidated condition, the roof was completely damaged and exposed to rain, it is not fit for living and also endanger to life of the petitioners. As such, the petitioners with intent to renovate the said house vacated the said house. While the renovation work is going on, on 26.06.2020 at about 11.00 AM, the 8th respondent along with 5th respondent police came to the site and highhandedly obstructed the 2nd petitioner and workers from doing renovation work and took the keys of JCB and tractor.
9) The 6th respondent took away the 2nd petitioner, JCB operator, tractor driver and the workers to the 5th respondent police station, verbally abused the 2nd petitioner and pressurized him to sell away their property to the 8th respondent. On 27.06.2020 at about 8.00 PM, the 8th respondent and his henchmen came along with 6th and 7th respondents and highhandedly trespassed into the petitioners' premises and took 5 away Rs.2,00,000/- worth construction materials i.e., iron pipes, cement bags, construction tools.
10) Again, on 28.06.2020 at about 5.00 PM, the 8th respondent along with Velagala Satyanarayana Reddy, Maram Venkateswararao and his 30 henchmen came to the petitioners' compound and threatened petitioners' watchman and destroyed some part of the compound wall. On complaint against the 8th respondent and his men, the 7th respondent abused the petitioners and yelled to get out from the 5th respondent police station.
11) At present, civil cases are pending between the petitioners and 8th respondent in the Courts. The 6th and 7th respondents at the instance of 8th respondent are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the subject property and also trying to handover possession of the said property to the 8th respondent with malafide intention. The petitioners filed a complaint to the 3rd respondent through email on 02.07.2020 and copy of the same has been sent to the respondents 1 to 4 by registered post and also to Spandana Portal, but the respondent authorities have not responded.
12) Having no other go, the Petitioners approached this Court praying to declare the action of the respondent authorities in interfering with the possession of the petitioners' house with vacant site as violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India; direct the 3rd respondent to conduct enquiry on the complaint made against the respondents 6 and 7 by the petitioners and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to interfere with the civil disputes pending between the petitioners and the 8th respondent in respect of the subject property. 6
13) At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for petitioners reiterated the allegations made in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition and sought direction against the respondent authorities not to in interfere with the civil disputes pending between the petitioners and the 8th respondent in respect of the subject property.
14) On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home represented that the matter in dispute is of civil in nature and the respondent authorities will not interfere in the matter. However, in case, any crime is registered for commission of any cognizable offence, against the petitioners, the respondent police would take action in accordance with law.
15) Having regard to the above and recording the submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondent police not to interfere with the civil disputes pending between the petitioners and the 8th respondent in respect of the subject property. However, it is made clear that, in case any crime is registered for commission of any cognizable offence by the petitioners, the police shall take action in accordance with the procedure established by law.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Dated 13.08.2020 IS 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.11589 of 2020 Dated 13.08.2020 IS