Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
D Rushi Bhaskar Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 4 July, 2022
1
CMR, J.
W.P.No.11503 of 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Writ Petition No.11503 of 2022
ORDER:
This Writ Petition for a mandamus is filed to declare the
action of respondents 2 and 3 police officials in not providing
police aid to the petitioner to enforce the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.758 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior
Civil Judge, Anantapuramu, as illegal and consequently, sought
direction as this Court deems fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for
respondents 1 to 3.
3. Despite service of notice on 4th respondent, none appeared
on his behalf.
4. The petitioner is the son of one D.Muni Reddy. Earlier, the
paternal grandfather of the petitioner by name D.Nagamuni
Reddy and the father of the petitioner by name D.Muni Reddy
have filed suit in O.S.No.758 of 2016 on the file of the Principal
Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu, against the 4th respondent
herein for permanent injunction restraining him from interfering
with the Rastha being used by the family members of the
petitioner from times immemorial situate on the eastern side of
the land of the 4th respondent bearing Survey No.216-3A2. The
4th respondent remained ex parte in the said Suit. He did not
CMR, J.
W.P.No.11503 of 2022
contest the said Suit. Therefore, the said Suit was decreed on
23.01.2017. Thus, it is evident that a permanent injunction
decree was passed against the 4th respondent in O.S.No.758 of
2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Anantapuramu, whereby he was restrained from interfering with
the usage of the Rastha by the petitioner and his family
members, which is the subject matter of the said Suit.
Thereafter, the father of the petitioner, who is 2nd plaintiff in the
said Suit, died.
5. Earlier, when the 4th respondent interfered with the right
of the petitioner in using the said Rastha, a report was lodged
with the police and a case in Crime No.34 of 2022 was registered
against him in Bukkarayasamudram Police Station, for the
offences punishable under Sections 341 and 506 r/w.34 of IPC.
6. Now, it is the grievance of the writ petitioner that in spite
of the fact that a permanent injunction decree was passed
against him and the aforesaid crime was registered against him
that the 4th respondent has been still interfering with his right in
respect of using the said Rastha, which is the subject matter of
the Suit in O.S.No.758 of 2016 and the decree passed therein.
Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner sought police aid from
the respondents 2 and 3 to enforce the said permanent
injunction decree passed by a competent civil Court and that
they are not providing any police aid. Therefore, the petitioner
sought for declaration as stated supra.
CMR, J.
W.P.No.11503 of 2022
7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, would
submit that as the dispute pertains to decree that was passed by
the civil Court that the petitioner was earlier advised to obtain
an order from the competent Court to provide police aid. So, he
would submit that if the competent Court directs the police to
provide police aid for enforcement of the decree that the police
are ready to provide police aid.
8. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents 2 and
3 to provide adequate police aid to the petitioner for effective
implementation of the decree that was passed in O.S.No.758 of
2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Anantarapuramu. No costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also
stand closed.
________________________________________________
JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date:04.07.2022.
cs
