Telangana High Court
WP/35037/2013 of Pakalapati Butchi Venkata Ramanamma Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal on 30 December 2013
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.35037 of 2013 Date : 30-12-2013 Between : Pakalapati Butchi Venkata Ramanamma .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Smt. A
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
W.P.No.35037 of 2013Date : 30-12-2013
Between :
Pakalapati Butchi Venkata Ramanamma ..
Petitioner
And
Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,Home Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad and others ..
Respondents
Counsel for petitioners : Smt. A. VaralakshmiCounsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Assistant GovernmentPleader for Home Counsel for respondent No.4 : Assistant GovernmentPleader for Revenue The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declarethe action of respondent No.3 in seeking to interfere in civildisputes in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-02½ centsin Sy.No.142/1 (Part) of Kothavalasa village and Mandal,Vizianagaram District, at the instance of respondent Nos.5to 8 as illegal and arbitrary.
Respondent No.3 filed a detailed counter affidavitwherein he has stated that there was a complaint and acounter complaint by the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to8 and that both these complaints were closed as theypertain to a civil dispute between the two parties. Respondent No.3 further stated that he has never interferedin the civil dispute and that he will not do so in future.
In view of the undertaking given by respondent No.3that he will not interfere in the civil dispute between thepetitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 8, this Court refrains fromprobing into the grievance of the petitioner further. If, infuture, respondent No.3 causes interference in the civildispute, the petitioner is permitted to meet respondent No.2
and submit a complaint. If such complaint is received,respondent No.2 shall take action against respondent No.3.
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMPNo.43554/2013 filed for interim relief is disposed of asinfructuous.
Date : 30-12-2013AM
________________________
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy