N.Kalavathi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 3133 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

               WRIT PETITION No.11176 of 2022

ORDER:-

      This Writ Petition for a mandamus is filed to declare the

action of the police officials, who are respondents 2 to 4, in not

considering the representations of the petitioners, dated

11.02.2022 and 30.03.2022, as illegal and consequently sought

direction to the police officials to take action on the aforesaid two

representations dated 11.02.2022 and 30.03.2022.

Despite service of notice on respondents 5 to 7, none

appeared on their behalf. Therefore, heard learned counsel for the

petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home

appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

As per the facts of the case as pleaded in the Writ Petition, it

is stated that the husband of the 1st petitioner by name N.

Muneendra Reddy entered into an agreement of sale, dated

01.12.1995, with one R. Krishnaswamy in respect of 0.75 cents of

land covered by Sy. No.232 and part of the sale consideration was

paid under the said agreement of sale. As the owner of the land did

not execute registered sale deed in respect of the said agreement of

sale, the husband of the 1st petitioner filed a suit for specific

performance in O.S.No.471 of 1996 on the file of the learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, and that the said suit was

decreed in favour of the husband of the 1st petitioner. The appeal

preferred by the defendant therein was also dismissed by the

appellate Court confirming the judgment of the trial Court.

Thereafter, it is stated that the unofficial respondent 7

illegally occupied 50 ankanams of land out of the land purchased

by the husband of the 1st petitioner and obtained electricity power

supply connection on the basis of false documents submitted by

them and they occupied the land of the petitioners in the above

extent and started illegal construction of a building in the said

land and when the petitioner resisted them that the 7th respondent

and his men beat her son and she lodged a report before the police

in Spandana Program.

Now, the grievance of the writ petitioners is that no action

was taken by the police on the basis of the report that was lodged

by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners sought declaration

that the acts of respondent - police officials in not taking any

action on the said representations submitted by them as illegal

and consequently sought direction to take action on the said

representations.

As can be seen from the report, dated 11.02.2022, which

was lodged with the police by the petitioners, a copy of which is

produced by the petitioners along with this Writ Petition, there is

absolutely no allegation that the unofficial respondent 7 beat the

1st petitioner or her son. The report does not disclose commission

of any cognizable offence. Therefore, learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Home would submit that as the report submitted by the

petitioners did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence

that no action was initiated on the said report. He would submit

that the dispute is purely of civil nature and the petitioners have to

pursue their civil remedy in the competent Court of law.

This Court finds considerable force in the said contention of

learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. As already

observed supra, nothing is stated in the report, dated 11.02.2022,

or the other report lodged by the petitioners that the unofficial

respondent 7 beat the 1st petitioner or her son and committed any

offence against them. Therefore, when the report did not disclose

commission of any cognizable offence, it cannot be said that there

is any inaction on the part of the police in taking any action on the

said reports. A careful examination of the facts of the case clearly

shows that the dispute is essentially a civil dispute.

According to the 1st petitioner, her husband obtained a

decree for specific performance against the defendant therein and

the appeal preferred by the defendant against the said judgment

was also dismissed and thereafter a registered sale deed was also

obtained by her husband in respect of the said land. Now, it is the

grievance of the writ petitioners that the unofficial respondent 7

has occupied the said land illegally in an extent of 50 ankanams

and made illegal construction on it. The photographs which are

now produced by the petitioners along with the Writ Petition

clearly show that foundation was laid and pillars were also

constructed in the said land by respondent 7. Therefore, when it is

the grievance of the writ petitioners that their land was occupied

by the unofficial respondent 7 and that he made illegal

constructions over the same, the writ petitioners have to file a suit

for recovery of possession of the said property after ejecting the

unofficial respondents therefrom by establishing their title in

respect of the said property. Therefore, the petitioners have to

pursue their civil remedy in a competent Court of law. In the said

facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not see any

merit in the Writ Petition.

Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the

petitioners are at liberty to pursue their lawful civil remedy in the

competent Court of law.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

Date: 29.06.2022

Note:

Issue C.C. by 01.07.2022.

B/O AKN

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

WRIT PETITION No. 11176 of 2022

Date: 29-06-2022

AKN