Kandregula Seetaram vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 350 AP

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                            &
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR


                           WRIT APPEAL No.1710 of 2018

                          (Taken up through video conferencing)

1. Kandregula Seetaram, S/o Apparao, Hindu, aged 49 years, Cultivation,
Residing at D.No.2-60, Ganaparthi Post and village, Munagapaka Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District and others.

                                                            .. Appellants.
         Versus

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary,
Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat of A.P.,
Amaravathi, Guntur District and others.

                                                            ..Respondents.

Counsel for the Appellants : Ms. T.V. Sridevi

Counsel for respondent No.1 : GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development.

Counsel for respondent Nos.2, 3 & 5: GP for Revenue.

Counsel for respondent Nos.4, 6 & 7 : Mr. I. Koti Reddy, standing counsel.

Counsel for respondent No.8             : GP for Home.


                                   ORAL JUDGMENT

                                    Dt: 25.01.2021

per C. Praveen Kumar, J

1. The present writ appeal came to be filed assailing the order dated

30.11.2018 passed in W.P.No.43354 of 2018, wherein the learned single

Judge of the combined High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State

of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, dismissed the writ petition

leaving it open to the appellants herein to work out their remedies in the

suit pending before the civil Court.

2. Perusal of the order impugned goes to show that O.S.No.52 of 2014

filed by the appellants herein is pending consideration before the Principal

Junior Civil Judge at Anakapalle. In the said suit, the Grampanchayat

represented by its Sarpanch, who is one of the respondents in this appeal,

is also a party.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the civil court

has not passed any order of injunction, restraining the defendants in the

suit, including the Grampanchayat from interfering with the alleged

possession of the appellants over the subject land. However, the learned

counsel would submit that the parties to the said suit and the parties in the

present appeal are different.

4. As seen from record, no interim order is passed by the civil court

restraining the defendants in the suit from interfering with the possession

of the appellants over the subject land. No explanation is given by the

counsel as to why the appellants failed to obtain such order, since last six

years if they are in possession. As the issue is pending adjudication before

the civil court, it would be just and proper to the appellants to agitate their

grievance before the civil court and obtain necessary orders.

5. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the

order passed by the learned single Judge.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, all

the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ                          C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

                                                                            Nn

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL No.1710 of 2018

(per C. Praveen Kumar, J)

Dt: 25.01.2021

Nn