IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.32773 of 2014 BETWEEN G. Venkat Reddy and another.
AND ... PETITIONERS The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and two others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. V. NARAYAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (AP) GP FOR REVENUE (AP) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioners allege that they are landless poor persons and are in possession of land in an extent of Ac.2.49 cents in Sy.No.107/3 and an extent of Ac.1.12 cents in Sy.No.107/4 of Seetharamapuram Village & Mandal, SPSR Nellore Dsitrict. Petitioners state that they have constructed an Abestos sheeted house and residing therein and they have also raised coconut trees and neem trees in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents. Petitioners, further, state that on account of recent cyclone, their house got damaged and while they were repairing the house, the second respondent police intervened and directed the petitioners not to take up any repair work. Questioning interference by revenue authorities, the petitioners approached this Court in WP.No.29390 of 2009 and by order of this Court dated 31.12.2009, interim direction, as prayed for, was granted directing the District Collector and Tahsildar not to dispossess the petitioners from their respective land, referred to above. Subsequently, the writ petition was heard and disposed of on 18.10.2014 observing that till an order is passed and communicated, the interim order granted by this Court would continue and the revenue authorities were directed to complete the exercise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Alleging that the second respondent is interfering in respect of the above land, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Learned Assistant Government for Home have received instructions.
The instructions state that the Tahsildar addressed a letter dated 16.10.2014 to the second respondent stating that there is a civil dispute pending before the High Court and that the petitioners as well as the villagers are contesting with respect to the said land and in the meanwhile, the Tahsildar requested the police to take appropriate action. The instructions, further, state that in view of the civil dispute pending between the petitioners and the villagers, the police found that they have nothing to do with the civil litigation and advised both the parties to approach the appropriate Court for redressal.
It is denied that the second respondent ever interfered with the possession of the petitioners and that as on now, no criminal case is registered against the petitioners before the second respondent and that the second respondent has neither harassed or threatened the petitioners nor interfered with the civil disputes of the petitioners with the villagers at any point of time.
4. In view of the aforesaid instructions, it is evident that there is no basis for the apprehension expressed by the petitioners that the police are interfering with their possession or otherwise restraining them from enjoying the land including taking up of repairs.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 17, 2014 DSK