IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.3123 of 2014 BETWEEN Smt. Pilaka Pydithalli and others.
AND ... PETITIONERS The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: MR. G. VASANTHA RAYUDU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME MR. P. NAGENDRA REDDY – R5 MR. S. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY – R4 The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Relief sought for in the writ petition is primarily against respondents 1 to 3 alleging that they are not giving protection to the petitioners and not implementing the orders of the Court with regard to illegal constructions said to have been made by respondent No.5.
2. On 07.02.2014, this Court had already recorded that illegal constructions made by respondent No.5 were already dealt with by the respondent corporation and that the respondent No.5 has not approached the Corporation for any building permission.
3. Mr. S. Lakshminaryana Reddy, learned standing counsel for the corporation, also submits that application for building permission subsequently made by respondent No.5 was also returned with objections, which is not resubmitted.
4. So far as respondents 1 to 3 are concerned, counter affidavit is filed by respondent No.3 stating that petitioner’s complaint dated 24.01.2014 before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam city, was examined and it is found that there is civil suit, O.S.No.298 of 2007, pending between the parties on the very same subject land before the VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Petitioners also appear to have obtained an order of status quo from this Court in the Receive and Transmit Miscellaneous PetitionNo.55 of 2014 in R&T.No.51 of 2014 on 17.01.2014, which is also pending adjudication before Addl. District Court. Police, therefore, express their helplessness in intervening in the matter, as the civil Court is seized of the dispute and the dispute relating to title and ownership of the said premises is pending adjudication. Hence, intervention by the police, at this stage, is totally uncalled for.
5. I am inclined to agree with the contentions of respondents 1 to 3 inasmuch the police cannot intervene in the matter where civil disputes are pending and the parties are before the competent civil Court. So far as the constructions made by respondent No.5 is concerned, learned standing counsel for the corporation has stated before this court that there is no construction permission in favour of respondent No.5. In that view of the matter, liberty is given to the petitioners to make appropriate application before respondent No.4.
The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 11, 2014 DSK