IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 20102 of 2014 BETWEEN G.Nagamani AND ... PETITIONERS The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that she gave a complaint dated 09.02.2013 to the Circle Inspector alleging trespass against persons named in the said complaint, followed by another complaint to the Superintendent of Police on 16.06.2014. It is stated that though the complaint was acknowledged, no progress therein took place. Alleging inaction the petitioner was constrained to approach this court by the present writ petition.
3. Learned Government Pleader has received instructions in the matter and submits on that basis that the petitioner lodged the complaint on 17.02.2013 claiming that her ancestral property to an extent of Ac.2-00 in Survey No.294 of Khanapuram Haveli of Khammam District was unlawfully encroached and a shed was erected by Kuncham Sreenu and Tirumala Rao; that along with the said complaint, petitioner submitted the pahani and pattadar passbook; that on investigation by the Station House Officer, it was found that as per the orders of the Joint Collector, Khammam, in Revision Petition No.15/10 dated 06.03.2013, pattadar passbook and title deed issued to the petitioner was cancelled; that the dispute relates to be civil in nature; and that petitioner was advised to approach the appropriate forum for redressal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that for the last one year petitioner’s complaint and the reminders are kept pending without any action. However, in view of the instructions now received, petitioner may be granted liberty to take appropriate steps.
Writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in view of the complaint of the petitioner being found to be in civil nature and giving liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate court of law for seeking relief of recovery of possession 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 August 7, 2014 LMV