IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.35220 of 2014 BETWEEN A.Yalamanchamma and another ... PETITIONER AND The Station House Officer and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioners state that they are the owners of land to an extent of Ac.1-
20 cents in survey No.75/A and Ac.1-07 cents in survey No.76 of Pandurangapuram village, Paloncha Mandal, Khammam District. Petitioners allege that third parties were interfering with their property of 200 square yards and were insisting on for using the pathway for the villagers. In view of the said interference, petitioners had approached learned Special Assistant Agent and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, by filing a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.378 of 2014 against ten defendants and obtained interim injunction in I.A.No.266 of 2014, dated 28.10.2014, restraining the said defendants from any way interfering with the petitioners’ aforesaid property and the said injunction is stated to be in force. While so, it is alleged that the respondent Police are interfering with the petitioners’ right and forcing them to leave a pathway for the said defendants. Hence, the writ petition is filed alleging unlawful interference.
3. Instructions received by the learned Government Pleader show that one Sunnam Veeralaxmi, W/o.Shankar, filed a complaint on 31.10.2014 against the petitioners and four others, based on which crime No.235 of 2014 was registered for the offences under Section 324, 294(b), 506 r/w 34 IPC on the file of Palavancha Rural Police Station, Khammam District. The instructions, however, further say that the police have addressed a letter to Tahisldar, Palavancha on 31.10.2014 requesting for a copy of the survey report and the reply from the Tahsildar is awaited. Petitioners’ allegation that police are forcing them for laying road for the villagers is denied.
4. Obviously, the suit, referred to above, is not within the knowledge of the respondent-police and the instructions do not say anything about the said suit.
5. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.1- Station House officer that he shall abide by the orders of the civil court, referred to above, and shall not act in any manner prejudicial to the said order. So far as crime No.235 of 2014 is concerned, respondent No.1 is free to investigate into the same and take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 8, 2014 LMV