Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gandreddi Ramana, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI
Writ Petition No.32882 of 2023
ORDER:
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the inaction of the resopndnets 2 and 3 in initiating any appropriate action againt the respondent 4 and 5 with regard to the complaint made by the petitioner dated 20.11.2023 in respect of the high handed and illegal action in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment, by throwing out the petitioner from its agricultural land in Sy.No.21/10 to an extent of Ac.0.03 cents and in Sy.No.21/17 to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents, situated at Malliveedu village, Lakkavarapukota Mandal, Vizianagaram District and further cutting the standing paddy crop without any power or authority, as illegal, improper, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to law, being violative of principles of natural justice, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3, to take appropriate action against the respondents 4 and 5, pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner dated 20.11.2023 by making a thorough enquiry, in this regard, and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3.
2
BSB, J W.P No.32882 of 2023
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
(a) The petitioner, a physically challenged person, is the actual owner and peaceful possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.21/10 and an extent of Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.No.21/17 situated at Malliveedu village, Lakkavarapukota Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The name of the petitioner was also entered in Form 1-B, i.e., Record of Rights of Grama Ward Sachivalayam.
(b) While the matter stood thus, the petitioner made an attempt to cut the standing paddy crop cultivated by him. Then, the respondents 4 & 5, without any power or authority, have thrown the petitioner from his land, abused him in filthy language and had taken away the standing crop. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents 4 & 5, the petitioner made a complaint before the respondents 2 & 3 on 20.11.2023. However, no action has been taken so far. Hence, it is just and necessary to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the respondents 4 & 5 pursuant to the complaint, dated 20.11.2023, of the petitioner.
4. The contention of the writ petitioner is that he has Ac.0.14 cents of land, i.e., in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.21/10 and an extent of Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.No.21/17 of Malliveedu village, 3 BSB, J W.P No.32882 of 2023 Lakkavarapukota Mandal, Vizianagaram District and that the respondents 4 & 5 raised a dispute with the petitioner claiming the same property, and thereby, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.22524 of 2023 against the State, District Collector, Vizianagaram, Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram and the Tahasildar, Lakkavarapukota Mandal, Vizianagaram District and by order, dated 15.09.2023, the said writ petition was allowed directing the Tahasildar to remove the entries in respect of the subject matter property from red mark and assign digital signatures to the same within a stipulated period. Later, the writ petitioner submitted reports to the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram, and Sub Inspector of Police, Lakkavarapukota Mandal on 20.11.2023 claiming that respondents 4 & 5 tried to push and beat the petitioner by using filthy language and challenged to report to whoever he likes and that the paddy crop in the land was stolen by them along with their two daughters, Arjunamma and Eswaramma. It is further prayed in the report to handover the land to him by considering the judgment of this Court in the above writ petition.
5. On written instructions, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that there are civil disputes between the petitioner and the respondents 4 & 5 and that after disposal of the 4 BSB, J W.P No.32882 of 2023 writ peititon, the Tahasildar gave notices to both parties but the petitioner has not cooperated. He further submitted that the reports were sent by the petitioner through post and he has not been cooperating for the action proposed by the Tahasildar.
6. As can be seen from the report, dated 20.11.2023, submitted to the Sub Inspector of Police and Superintendent of Police, the petitioner is seeking delivery of the property by the police, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the police. Regarding the alleged theft of paddy, no details of date etc., were given.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner needs police protection to secure his property and that a fresh representation will be given to the police seeking police protection.
8. As such, this Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the concerned authorities seeking appropriate relief. No costs.
Pending miscelleous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 02-01-2024 RAR