WP/26704/2006 of Tholada Nukanna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by the secretary on 29 December 2006

ORDER:

The petitioner is resident of Pedda Uppada Village. Hesucceeded to the property admeasuring Acs.1.57 in survey No.16/2situated at Chepal Uppada village of Bheemunipatnam Mandal inVisakhapatnam District, which was purchased by his father underthree registered sale deeds. When there was an interference with thepossession by the third respondent herein, the petitioner filed a suitbeing O.S.No.293 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Junior CivilJudge, Bheemunipatnam, and obtained ad interim injunction by virtueof order dated 08.11.2006. Thereafter, it appears, the third respondentapproached the second respondent in response to which the latteraddressed a letter to the Sub-Inspector of Police,P.S.Bheemunipatnam, and Circle Inspector of Police, informing thatthe petitioner herein has no right over the land in survey No.16/2A. Asa result of such communication, which is impugned in the writ petition,Sub-Inspector of Police and Circle Inspector of Police visited thepetitioner’s property. The petitioner then approached theSuperintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam (Rural) on 17.11.2006 whenpolice officials dropped further action. However, the secondrespondent again started interfering in the matter, aggrieved by which,the present writ petition is filed.

Heard the learned Counsel for petitioner and learned AssistantGovernment Pleader for Revenue (General-A). A perusal of theimpugned letter of the second respondent dated 22.11.2006 wouldshow that he virtually decided the question of title as well aspossession though the dispute is pending in the Civil Court inO.S.No.293 of 2006 filed by the petitioner herein. The action of thesecond respondent is, therefore, not above the board. This Court has repeatedly held that the police or revenue officials can neither resolvethe question of disputed title nor interfere with the possession of aparty, when the matter is pending in Civil Court. If the Civil Courtpasses an order directing Police Officer to give protection to the personin possession it is altogether different. In a similar matter, this Courtwhile disposing of writ petition being W.P.No.4328 of 2006 dated07.12.2006 observed as under.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, thelearned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (General-A) and the learned Counsel for the third respondent, havingregard to the fact that the suit was filed by the third respondenteven before the first respondent addressed the secondrespondent, this Court observes that in a matter where thereis a civil dispute pending in a civil Court either for declarationof title or for perpetual injunction, revenue authorities or Policeauthorities should not ordinarily interfere in such dispute. This, however, does not bar the jurisdiction of the revenueauthorities under the specific enactments in relation torevenue matters. Therefore, the impugned order/letter iscertainly beyond the power or jurisdiction of the firstrespondent. Be that as it is, it is now brought to the notice ofthis Court that in I.A.No.11 of 2006 in O.S.No.19 of 2006, theCourt of the II Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, passedorders of status quo on 10.04.2006, and if any party isaggrieved thereby or violation of such status quo order, thenthey have to move the same Court for necessary Policeprotection.

The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of observing that unlessand until there is a specific order from Civil Court, the revenue officialsor police officers cannot interfere with possession of the petitioner. Nocosts.

_____________

December 29, 2006. (V.V.S.RAO,J)NOTE:Issue order copy by 02.1.2007.(By order)YS