Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Manda Nagamalleshwar Rao vs Smt Tabeti Manimala on 23 August, 2024
APHC010272302024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
WRIT APPEAL NO: 592 of 2024
Manda Nagamalleshwar Rao ...Appellant
Vs.
Smt. Tabeti Manimala and Others ...Respondent(s)
**********
Ms.M.S.V.S. Sudha Rani, Advocate for appellant
Mr.S. Bala Mohan Ranga, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Government Pleader for Home, for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
DATE : 23rd August, 2024
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ(Oral) :
The present writ appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order, dated 27.03.2024, in W.P. No.116 of 2024. The learned single Judge,
by virtue of the judgment and order impugned, allowed the writ petition
granting liberty to the petitioner to make an application before the police
authorities on receipt whereof the police authorities were directed to give
police protection to the petitioner.
HCJ & RC, J
2. The police protection was so ordered based upon the fact that the
petitioner before the writ Court had obtained Decree in a civil Suit in regard to
property measuring three cents falling under Sy. No.76/2 in Bhimarajugutta,
Ibrahimpatnam Village & Mandal, Krishna District.
On a perusal of the record, it appears that the Decree for possession
had been obtained against the defendants namely Nallamothu Babu Rao and
Nallamothu Jaya Sudha.
3. As per the case set up before the learned single Judge, the petitioner
asserted that during the course of execution of the Decree in E.P. No.19 of
2016, the respondents herein namely Manda Nagamalleshwar Rao and
Manda Bikshamraju had sought to resist the execution of the Decree in
question and sought impleadment. It is stated that the trial Court passed
appropriate orders rejecting the claims of the respondents in the Execution
Petition despite which the respondents herein continued to interfere with the
possession of the subject property belonging to the petitioner and in that
background, the petition was filed seeking police protection.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, would submit that the suit
in which the Decree had been passed ex parte was a collusive suit and
therefore, in the garb of executing the said Decree, the rights of the appellant
were being forcibly taken under police protection. Apart from this, it is stated
HCJ & RC, J
that principles of natural justice had been violated inasmuch as the directions
were issued ordering the police protection without issuing notice to the
appellant herein, who was respondent in the said petition.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Admittedly, the writ petition was disposed of without issuing notice to
the respondent/appellant herein. While there is no doubt that the petitioner
had obtained Decree from the Court below, however, the said Decree was
against a separate set of defendants, who were not respondents in the writ
petition. Although the appellant has not stated clearly in their memo of appeal
as to what is their right over the property in question, yet it would have been
appropriate for the learned single Judge to have heard the respondents before
issuing final directions for police protection. We may submit that it is no longer
res integra that a party may approach the High Court for issuance of writ
claiming police protection on account of a deliberate disobedience of a Decree
in regard to the property in question, yet the police protection cannot be
ordered in regard to the property which was never the subject matter of a
Decree, or a situation where the Decree is made the basis for obtaining
possession of a parcel of land, which was not the subject matter of the
HCJ & RC, J
Decree. Reference in this regard can be made to P.R.Murlidharan v. Swami
Dharmananda Theertha Padar1.
7. Be that as it may, we allow the writ appeal setting aside the order
impugned. The matter is remanded for consideration afresh by the learned
single Judge. Parties to appear before the learned single Judge. Registry is
directed to list the matter before the appropriate Bench having roster on
02.09.2024. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J
AKN
(2006) 4 SCC 501
HCJ & RC, J
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
DATE :23.08.2024
AKN
