Ravi Srihari Rao vs Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist. and others

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of unofficial respondent Nos.4 and 5 in trying to disposes him from an extent of Ac.2.25 cents in RSNo.374/5 and 374/3 of Vamikuru Village, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District with the active connivance of the Police, particularly respondent Nos.2 and 3, as illegal and arbitrary and to pass such other orders.

The undisputed facts of this case are that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question as a lessee according to the petitioner, as a licensee according to the respondents and the period is going to expire by 30-4-1999. Even before the expiry of this period some disputes seemed to have arisen between the parties and with the result, the petitioner filed A.T.C. No.15/98 on the file of Special Officer-cum-II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada on 2-9-1998 and he also filed IA No.921/98 seeking temporary injunction restraining respondent Nos.4 and 5 from interfering with his possession over the petition schedule lands. The Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 while receiving Notice on the said IA made an endorsement on 3-9-1998 as hereunder:

"Received Notice. Prays time for filing vakalat and counter as the respondents are residing in a village and as such we have to intimate by way of Postal letter and undertake not to enter into the land of petitioner in ATC."

Inspite of the undertaking given by their Counsel, respondent Nos.4 and 5 seemed to have tried to interfere with the possession of the petitioner and in those circumstances, the petitioner filed a complaint on 26-11-1998 in Penamaluru Police Station, under acknowledgment, against the respondent Nos.4 and 5. According to the Police, both respondent Nos.4 and 5 as well as the petitioner appeared before the Police on 27-11-1998 and executed separate letters stating that there are no disputes between the parties and a compromise is going to be effected between them on 5-12-1998 in the presence of village elders. On that basis, the complaint given by the petitioner was closed. Thereafter, what transpired with regard to the compromise talks is not forthcoming in this case. But, at the same time, the lower Court having heard the arguments posted the IA for judgment after vacation. Taking advantage of the vacation, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 entered upon the land and cut away the betal leaves and completely damaged the betal leaves garden. Thereafter approached the Police on the same day and a complaint was lodged by wife and daughter-in-law of respondent No.4 by contending that while they were attending to agricultural operations in their lands the petitioner entered upon the lands and assaulted them. Promptly, the Police registered crime No.128/99 under Sections 354, 447 and 506 of IPC. But, when the petitioner approached the Police and sought for protection by stating the facts stated above, the Police refused to receive the complaint from the petitioner. In those circumstances, this Writ Petition is filed.

By order dated 9-6-1999 I directed respondent No.2-Circle inspector, East Circle, Gannavaratn, to appear in this Court on 23-6-1999. Respondent No.2 appeared in the Court and also filed counter wherein he categorically admitted the fact that the lease period came to an end by 30-4-1999 and on the basis of the complaint given by wife and daughter-in-law of respondent No.4 he registered the crime No. 128/99 and he was not aware of the civil disputes between the petitioner and unofficial respondents herein. It is his case that the present Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner only to pre-empt the Police from taking investigation into the complaint. He has also admitted the fact of pendency of ATC 15/98, and IA No.921/98 seeking temporary injunction, in the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. When the Court questioned him how the respondents came into possession of the property, when the dispute is pending before the Court, he has no answer. Further, when the Court confronted with the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 26-11-1998, he stated that he is not aware of the said complaint. On that, by order dated 23-6-1999 I directed the S.H.O. to file an affidavit about the action taken by him on the complaint given by the petitioner on 26-11-1998. Along with the counter respondent No.3 filed the letters executed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 as well as the petitioner on 27-11-1998 and on the basis of the above letters the case was closed.

On the day I gave Notice in the Writ Petition on 9-6-1999. The learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge granted injunction in favour of the petitioner on 9-6-1999. From the narration of the above facts it is seen that all through the petitioner was in possession of the petition schedule property and it is respondent Nos.4 and 5, who entered upon the land and destroyed the betal leaves garden in the land. Now, as the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge granted injunction in favour of the petitioner, I need not pass any orders in this Writ Petition. But, at the same time, the petitioner is given liberty to file a suit against the respondents for recovery of damages for destruction of betal leaves garden, if he so advised.

The question that is left to be answered is whether the petitioner should be awarded costs in this Writ Petition or not. As stated supra, respondent Nos.4 and 5 have not only wrongly entered upon the land and destroyed the standing crop but also got a false complaint filed by wife and daughter-in-law of respondent No.4 to give more effect to the incident and got the crime registered by the Police, whose bona fides are very much doubted in this case. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to have his costs in this Writ Petition. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand) towards costs to the petitioner within four weeks from today, failing which the petitioner will be entitled to deduct the said amount from the lease amount that is payable to respondent Nos.4 and 5 in future.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is closed.