For violation injunction order also urgent action is required
to be taken against the violators. It is an undisputed fact that an interim injunction order was
obtained in by the
petitioner and it is subsisting against the respondents 3 and 4.
In case, the respondents 3 and 4 are interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land,
despite interim the injunction order, it amounts to disobedience of
injunction order and such action of the respondents 3 and 4 can be
enquired into by filing an application under Order 39 Rules 2-A CPC.
Thus, an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to file an
application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC against the respondents 3
and 4 for violation or disobeying interim injunction order, as
complained by this petitioner. - WRIT NOT MAINTAINABLE
AP HIGH COURT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.12721 OF 2020
ORDER:
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
filed claiming the following relief:-
“to issue a Writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 2nd respondent
though respondents 3 and 4 and their men are creating problems
in the land of petitioner in an extent of Ac.2.86 cents in
Sy.No.206/E/3 which is situated at Gudibanda Village,
Ananthapuram District and trying to manhandle the petitioner
and for not taking the decision on the representation of
petitioner, as illegal, improper and arbitrary and to pass such
other order.”
2. It is the case of petitioner that the petitioner’s father Kari
Lingappa is the owner of land in an extent of Ac.2.86 cents in
Sy.No.206/E/3, which is situated at Gudibanda Village,
Ananthapuram District. He executed a registered gift deed on
14.06.2019 in favour of his grandchildren who are the minor sons of
petitioner herein by name Amruth Gowd, aged about 8 years and
Bhanu Prakash, aged about 6 years. Pattadar pass book and title
deed were also obtained by Khata No.3013 and in 1-B register also
the petitioner’s name was mutated and her name was also amended
in Adangals. Thus, on behalf of her minor sons the petitioner is
continuing in possession and enjoyment of the property by raising
groundnut crop every year.
3. While the matter stood thus, respondents 3 and 4 along with
some other persons made an attempt to interfere with the petitioner’s
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and immediately
the petitioner made complaints to the 2nd respondent on 16.11.2019,
2
18.11.2019 and in the month of June, 2020 to register a crime
against the respondents 3 and 4 complaining their illegal interference
with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the property, but no
action was taken by the 2nd respondent so far.
4. Having no other option the petitioner approached the Civil
Court by filing O.S.No.36/2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,
Madakasira, Ananthapuram District, she filed an application under
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in I.A.No.88/2020 in O.S.No.36/2020
for grant of interim injunction and obtained interim injunction order
dated 13.03.2020 restraining the respondents 3 and 4 from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
petitioner over the subject property during pendency of the suit.
However, respondents 3 and 4 have violated the injunction order
granted by the Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira on 13.03.2020 and
they are still trying to interfere with her peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the petitioner approached this
Court requesting to direct the 2nd respondent to provide necessary
police protection to implement the injunction order passed by the
learned Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira, Ananthapuram District.
5. During the course of hearing, Smt.Akella Padma, the learned
counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the
petition, while contending that the failure of respondent police to
provide necessary protection to the petitioner to cultivate her land is
nothing but failure to discharge their public duty and sought for Writ
of Mandamus as claimed.
6. Whereas learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that
an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to approach the
Civil Court by filing an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC and
3
this Court cannot exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and requested to pass appropriate
order.
7. It is an undisputed fact that an interim injunction order was
obtained in I.A.No.88/2020 in O.S.No.36/2020 on 13.03.2020 by the
petitioner and it is subsisting against the respondents 3 and 4.
In case, the respondents 3 and 4 are interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land,
despite interim the injunction order, it amounts to disobedience of
injunction order and such action of the respondents 3 and 4 can be
enquired into by filing an application under Order 39 Rules 2-A CPC.
Thus, an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to file an
application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC against the respondents 3
and 4 for violation or disobeying interim injunction order, as
complained by this petitioner. When an efficacious remedy is
available elsewhere, this Court would normally will not entertain
these types of petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India or even to provide police protection.
8. Therefore, at this stage, I am of the view that it is appropriate
to direct the petitioner to approach the Civil Court by filing an
application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC to take appropriate action
against the respondents 3 and 4 for violation of injunction order
dated 13.03.2020 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge,
Madakasira, Ananthapuram District in I.A.No.88/2020 in
O.S.No.36/2020 after making necessary enquiry.
9. The only difficulty expressed by the counsel for petitioner is
that the Courts are not entertaining any applications in view of the
instructions issued by this Court from time to time. No doubt, this
4
Court issued directions from time to time instructing the judicial
officers. For violation injunction order also urgent action is required
to be taken against the violators. Therefore, the learned Junior Civil
Judge, Madakasira, Ananthapuram District is directed to entertain
the application, if any, filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule
2-A CPC and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
10. With the above direction, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
also stand closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 24.08.2020
Note: Furnish CC by 26.08.2020
B/o.
IS
5
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.12721 OF 2020
Date: 24.08.2020
IS
AP HIGH COURT
| Main Number | WP 12721/2020 | SR Number | WPSR 15938/2020 |
| Petitioner | MANJUNATHA | Respondent | The State of Andhra Pradesh |
| Petitioner Advocate | A PADMA | Respondent Advocate | GP FOR HOME |
WRIT PETITION NO.12721 OF 2020
ORDER:
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
filed claiming the following relief:-
“to issue a Writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature
of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of 2nd respondent
though respondents 3 and 4 and their men are creating problems
in the land of petitioner in an extent of Ac.2.86 cents in
Sy.No.206/E/3 which is situated at Gudibanda Village,
Ananthapuram District and trying to manhandle the petitioner
and for not taking the decision on the representation of
petitioner, as illegal, improper and arbitrary and to pass such
other order.”
2. It is the case of petitioner that the petitioner’s father Kari
Lingappa is the owner of land in an extent of Ac.2.86 cents in
Sy.No.206/E/3, which is situated at Gudibanda Village,
Ananthapuram District. He executed a registered gift deed on
14.06.2019 in favour of his grandchildren who are the minor sons of
petitioner herein by name Amruth Gowd, aged about 8 years and
Bhanu Prakash, aged about 6 years. Pattadar pass book and title
deed were also obtained by Khata No.3013 and in 1-B register also
the petitioner’s name was mutated and her name was also amended
in Adangals. Thus, on behalf of her minor sons the petitioner is
continuing in possession and enjoyment of the property by raising
groundnut crop every year.
3. While the matter stood thus, respondents 3 and 4 along with
some other persons made an attempt to interfere with the petitioner’s
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property and immediately
the petitioner made complaints to the 2nd respondent on 16.11.2019,
2
18.11.2019 and in the month of June, 2020 to register a crime
against the respondents 3 and 4 complaining their illegal interference
with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the property, but no
action was taken by the 2nd respondent so far.
4. Having no other option the petitioner approached the Civil
Court by filing O.S.No.36/2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge,
Madakasira, Ananthapuram District, she filed an application under
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC in I.A.No.88/2020 in O.S.No.36/2020
for grant of interim injunction and obtained interim injunction order
dated 13.03.2020 restraining the respondents 3 and 4 from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
petitioner over the subject property during pendency of the suit.
However, respondents 3 and 4 have violated the injunction order
granted by the Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira on 13.03.2020 and
they are still trying to interfere with her peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the petitioner approached this
Court requesting to direct the 2nd respondent to provide necessary
police protection to implement the injunction order passed by the
learned Junior Civil Judge, Madakasira, Ananthapuram District.
5. During the course of hearing, Smt.Akella Padma, the learned
counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the
petition, while contending that the failure of respondent police to
provide necessary protection to the petitioner to cultivate her land is
nothing but failure to discharge their public duty and sought for Writ
of Mandamus as claimed.
6. Whereas learned Government Pleader for Home submitted that
an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to approach the
Civil Court by filing an application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC and
3
this Court cannot exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India and requested to pass appropriate
order.
7. It is an undisputed fact that an interim injunction order was
obtained in I.A.No.88/2020 in O.S.No.36/2020 on 13.03.2020 by the
petitioner and it is subsisting against the respondents 3 and 4.
In case, the respondents 3 and 4 are interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land,
despite interim the injunction order, it amounts to disobedience of
injunction order and such action of the respondents 3 and 4 can be
enquired into by filing an application under Order 39 Rules 2-A CPC.
Thus, an efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner to file an
application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC against the respondents 3
and 4 for violation or disobeying interim injunction order, as
complained by this petitioner. When an efficacious remedy is
available elsewhere, this Court would normally will not entertain
these types of petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India or even to provide police protection.
8. Therefore, at this stage, I am of the view that it is appropriate
to direct the petitioner to approach the Civil Court by filing an
application under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC to take appropriate action
against the respondents 3 and 4 for violation of injunction order
dated 13.03.2020 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge,
Madakasira, Ananthapuram District in I.A.No.88/2020 in
O.S.No.36/2020 after making necessary enquiry.
9. The only difficulty expressed by the counsel for petitioner is
that the Courts are not entertaining any applications in view of the
instructions issued by this Court from time to time. No doubt, this
4
Court issued directions from time to time instructing the judicial
officers. For violation injunction order also urgent action is required
to be taken against the violators. Therefore, the learned Junior Civil
Judge, Madakasira, Ananthapuram District is directed to entertain
the application, if any, filed by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule
2-A CPC and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
10. With the above direction, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
also stand closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
Date: 24.08.2020
Note: Furnish CC by 26.08.2020
B/o.
IS
5
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.12721 OF 2020
Date: 24.08.2020
IS
