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.
BSB, J
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,
BSB, J
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
BSB, J
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
