WA/1061/2024 of LOKIREDDY VENKATESWARA REDDY @ CHINNA VENKATESWARLU Vs THE STATE OF AP on 31 December 2024

1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat,Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District. Rep. by its Principal Secretary.Velagapudi Amaravathi, Guntur District. Rep. by its Principal Secretary.

2. The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kavali Revenue DivisionKavali, SPSRNellore District.Nellore District.

4. The Tahsildhar, Kaligiri Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

5The Station House Officer, Kaligiri Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.-- \

6. Bijjam Hazarath Reddy, S/o. Pedda Yella Reddy Aged[about][ 56]yearsOcc. Agriculturist, R/o. Narsingapadu Village, Nakirekallu MandalGuntur District.Occ. Agriculturist, R/o. Narsingapadu Village, Nakirekallu MandalGuntur District.

7. Bijjam Krishna Reddy, S/o. Pedda Yella Reddy Aged[about][ 54]yearsOcc. Agriculturist, R/o. Narsingapadu Village, Nakirekallu Mandal,Guntur District.Occ. Agriculturist, R/o. Narsingapadu Village, Nakirekallu Mandal,Guntur District.

...Respondents/ Respondents

8. Lokireddy Sridevi, W/o. Chandra Sekhar reddy, Aged about 46years,R/o. B/12/71/5, Subbareddy Nagar, Buchhireddy Palem, NelloreSPSRNellore District.R/o. B/12/71/5, Subbareddy Nagar, Buchhireddy Palem, NelloreSPSRNellore District.

...Respondent/ 2"^^ Writ Petitioner-

lA NO: 1 OF 2n9A

Petition under Section 15T CPCpraying that in the circumstancesstated m the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to suspend the orders passed by the 4th respondentin RGB76/2024 dated. 27-01-2024,pending disposal of the above Writ AppeaP

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. C SUBODH

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4:

GP FOR REVENUE

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR HOME

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6&7:SRI K RATHANGA PANI REDDY

The Court made the following order:

APHC010582282024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3508]

TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAMWRIT APPEAL NO: 1061/2024

Between:

Lokireddy Venkateswara Reddy @ Chinna Venkateswarlu

...APPELLANT

AND

The State Of Ap and Others...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant:

1. CSUBODH

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HOME

2. GP FOR REVENUE

3. K RATHANGA PANI REDDY

The Court made the following Judgment: (perHon'biesnjusticeR.Rag[hunanaanRao)]

Theappellanthereinandthe8threspondenthadfiledW.P.No.25408 of 2024, assailing proceedings, dated 27.01.2024,of the 4threspondent, passed under Section 145 of the Code of[Criminal][ Procedure]1973 [for short “the Cr.P.C”], on the ground that there is a dispute, in relationto Ac.10.10centsofland,inSy.No.104-1of GudladonaVillage,Kaligiri Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, due to which there was[a][ breakdown][ of][ law]and order and violence was likely.

2. AlearnedSingleJudgeofthisCourt,byanOrder,dated11.11.2024, had directed the private respondents 6[&][ 7][ not][ to][ interfere][ with]the peaceful possession of the appellant and the 8^'^ respondent over the saidland,till the conclusion of the suit filed by the respondents 6 & 7, in the CivilCourt, for a declaration of title and recovery of possession, bearing O.S.No.3of 2021, before the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali.11.11.2024, had directed the private respondents 6[&][ 7][ not][ to][ interfere][ with]the peaceful possession of the appellant and the 8^'^ respondent over the saidland,till the conclusion of the suit filed by the respondents 6 & 7, in the CivilCourt, for a declaration of title and recovery of possession, bearing O.S.No.3of 2021, before the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali.

3. Thereafter, the said Order was modified, by a subsequent[Order]of the Learned Single Judge, dated 12.12.2024. The learned Single Judge, inthe subsequent Order had modified the Order to an Order of Status-quo andgranted time for the private respondents 6 & 7 to file[their][ counter][ affidavit.]of the Learned Single Judge, dated 12.12.2024. The learned Single Judge, inthe subsequent Order had modified the Order to an Order of Status-quo andgranted time for the private respondents 6 & 7 to file[their][ counter][ affidavit.]

4. Aggrievedby the said Order, dated12.12.2024,the appellantherein moved the present Writ Appeal.herein moved the present Writ Appeal.

5. Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel for the appellant would[contend]thattheOrderofStatus-quoisbeingmisusedbythe4**^respondent-Tahsildhar who has forbidden the appellant and therespondent fromentering into the land, on the ground that the proceedings,[under][ Section][ 145]of the Cr.P.C, are still pending and also on the ground[that][ the][ Order][ of][ the]Learned Single Judge is to be understood to mean that no party can enter theland.thattheOrderofStatus-quoisbeingmisusedbythe4**^respondent-Tahsildhar who has forbidden the appellant and therespondent fromentering into the land, on the ground that the proceedings,[under][ Section][ 145]of the Cr.P.C, are still pending and also on the ground[that][ the][ Order][ of][ the]Learned Single Judge is to be understood to mean that no party can enter theland.

6. Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel appearing[for][ the]private respondents 6 & 7, would contend that the Order is an interlocutoryorder which does not decide the rights of either party finally. He would submitthat in such circumstances the Writ Appeal is not maintainable[and]it would beappropriate that the matter is sent back to the Learned Single Judge for adecision before the Learned Single Judge. He wouldalso submit that therespondents 6 & 7 have also filed their counter affidavits and the pleadingsare complete.private respondents 6 & 7, would contend that the Order is an interlocutoryorder which does not decide the rights of either party finally. He would submitthat in such circumstances the Writ Appeal is not maintainable[and]it would beappropriate that the matter is sent back to the Learned Single Judge for adecision before the Learned Single Judge. He wouldalso submit that therespondents 6 & 7 have also filed their counter affidavits and the pleadingsare complete.

7. Aperusalof the Order, dated12.12.^2024, showsitisonly ainterlocutory order which has not become final,in[as][ much][ as][ the][ Learned]Single Judge had observed that the said Order is to be maintained,till furtherorders.interlocutory order which has not become final,in[as][ much][ as][ the][ Learned]Single Judge had observed that the said Order is to be maintained,till furtherorders.

8. In that view of the matter, this Court would find that a Writ Appealwould not be maintainable at this stage andit would be appropriate that thematter is agitated before the Learned Single Judge.would not be maintainable at this stage andit would be appropriate that thematter is agitated before the Learned Single Judge.

9. However, the fact remains that the4'*^ respondent-Tahsildharcould not have intervened in the matter after the Orders of the Learned SingleJudge.It is not clear as to how the Order, under Section[145][ of][ the][ Cr.P.C]could have been passed, when the matter was already[before][ the][ Civil][ Court]by way of O.S.No.3 of 2021, before the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali.Further, the Orders of the Learned Single Judge cover the dispute in questionand the Tahsildar could not have insisted on compliance of the Order, undercould not have intervened in the matter after the Orders of the Learned SingleJudge.It is not clear as to how the Order, under Section[145][ of][ the][ Cr.P.C]could have been passed, when the matter was already[before][ the][ Civil][ Court]by way of O.S.No.3 of 2021, before the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Kavali.Further, the Orders of the Learned Single Judge cover the dispute in questionand the Tahsildar could not have insisted on compliance of the Order, under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C.It may also be noted that[the][ respondents][ 6][ &][ 7]themselves have filed O.S.No.3 of 2021, seeking a declarationof title andrecoveryof possession.Thisiseffectively anadmissiononthepartofrespondents 6 & 7 that they are not in possession of[the][ land][ and][ that][ the]appellant and therespondent and persons claiming through[them]areinpossession of the said land.

10. Therespondent-Tahsildar cannot interfere in disputes[which]are already seized of by this Court as well as by the[Civil][ Court.]are already seized of by this Court as well as by the[Civil][ Court.]

11. With these observations, this Writ Appeal is dismissed leaving[ it]open to the appellant to approach the Learned Single[Judge.][ There][ shall][ be]no order as to costs.open to the appellant to approach the Learned Single[Judge.][ There][ shall][ be]no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions,if any,[shall][ stand]closed.

Sd/- M RAMESH BABUDEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To

SECTfdN OFFICER

1. One CC toSri. C Subodh Advocate [OPUC]

2. One CC to Sri.K Ratnanga Pani Reddy Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court Of Andhra[Pradesh.][ [OUT]]

4. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh.[[OUT]]

5. Three CD Copies

GSC

HIGH COURT

DATED;31/12/2024

ORDER

WA.No.1061 of 2024

DISMISSING OF THE WA

WITHOUT COSTS

<ro<Pv.r«Ii ^21 JAN 2C2j. Current Section j, ^« AT’■'

sii