HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10335 of 2010
Date: April 22, 2014
Between:
P. Venkateswara Rao.
… Petitioner And
1. Superintendent of Police, Krishna, Machilipatnam & 3 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.10335 of 2010
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4.
2. This writ petition was filed challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4.
3. The petitioner purchased an extent of Ac.0.20 cents out of a total extent of Ac.0.39 cents of wet land situated in R.S.No.876/2 of Koduru Village and Mandal, Krishna District, under a registered sale deed dated 18.10.2008. The 4th respondent is a neighbour on the western side and the 3rd respondent is none other than brother-in-law of the petitioner, who is not having good terms with the petitioner. When they tried to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, the petitioner filed O.S.No.145 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, seeking injunction against the defendants. When the said suit was pending, respondent 2, in collusion with respondents 3 and 4, was threatening the petitioner with dire consequences and coercing him to withdraw the suit. In those circumstances, the petitioner got issued a notice through his counsel on 14.08.2009 requesting the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the civil disputes. In spite of sending notice, the 2nd respondent went ahead with his arbitrary action by sending two constables to the residence of the petitioner. The petitioner was also asked to attend the police station and when threats were continuing, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner and specifically stated that no complaint whatsoever was received or registered against the petitioner on the file of Koduru Police Station and hence summoning of the petitioner to the police station does not arise. He also stated that he never summoned the petitioner nor asked the petitioner to settle the disputes with respondents 3 and 4 at any point of time. He stated that he never interfered with the civil disputes, much less with the civil disputes, of the petitioner.
5. The 3rd respondent filed a separate counter-affidavit stating that he purchased an extent of Ac.2.01 ½ cents of wet land in R.S.No.876/1 of Koduru Village under registered sale deed dated 29.3.1975 and took possession of the same. Thereafter, he gifted an extent of Ac.0.50 cents to each of his sisters towards their pasupu kumkuma keeping only an extent of Ac.0.50 cents. Subsequently, he purchased another extent of Ac.0.39 cents of wet land in Survey No.876/2 of Koduru Village from his mother under an oral sale on 21.01.1995. Thus, he is in possession of the extent of Ac.0.89 cents in Survey No.876/1 and Survey No.876/2. His name was also mutated in revenue records and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Koduru issued pattadar passbook in his favour on 28.05.1995. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Machilipatnam, has also issued title deeds on 15.05.1996. While so, the petitioner, who is none other than his brother-in-law (husband of the elder sister) tried to interfere with the possession of his family properties and in those circumstances, he filed O.S.No.114 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, against him for permanent injunction. Thereafter only the petitioner filed O.S. No.145 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, against respondents 3 and 4 and two more individuals seeking permanent injunction in respect of an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in R.S. No.876/2.
6. From the rival contentions it is clear that O.S.No.114 of 2009 filed by the 3rd respondent and O.S.No.145 of 2009 filed by the petitioner are pending on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, seeking permanent injunction in respect of different items of property. The rights of the parties can be adjudicated in the said civil suits. Though the petitioner stated that he issued a notice on 14.08.2009 to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent did not either admitted or denied the receipt of the said notice. However, in view of the statement made by the 2nd respondent that he is not interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4, this writ petition is closed recording the said statement of the 2nd respondent. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: April 22, 2014 BSB
29 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.10335 of 2010
Date: April 22, 2014
BSB