lTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA l lWRIT PETITION No.27967 of 2009 DATE:22.12.2009 Between: Pentakota Lova Vanaja ... Petitioner and The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District at Kakinada and others ... Respondents l l l l lTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA l lWRIT PETITION No.27967 of 2009 l ORDER: According to the petitioner, she is the owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.1.00 in Sy.No.22/1 situated at Boddavaram village, Kotananduru Mandal, East Godavari District and the land was gifted to her by her parents by a registered gift deed dated 16.02.2005. While so, the 3rd respondent herein, who is none other than the elder sister of her mother, is interfering with her peaceful possession of the land, without having any manner of right. Hence, she filed a suit in O.S.No.176 of 2007 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, against her, for permanent injunction. While the matter stood thus, in order to grab her property illegally, the 3rd respondent lodged a complaint against her parents on 04.11.2009 with the 2nd respondent, who registered the same as a case in Crime No.89 of 2009 on 09.11.2009 for the offences under Sections 447, 323, 379 r/w Section 34 IPC. Despite the fact that the crime is registered against her parents only, the 2nd respondent at the instigation of the 3rd respondent is summoning her to the police station and threatening her to implicate in false cases if the said land is not transferred in favour of the 3rd respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, she approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. · 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home. · 3. As seen from the FIR, it is clear that a case in crime No.89 of 2009 was registered only against Y. Appalanarsa, Yallapu Satyanarayana and Vegi Suribabu, but not against the petitioner. When the petitioner is not added as an accused in the said crime, in my considered view, the 2nd respondent has no business at all to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over her land. Therefore, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent. 4. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over her land, without following due process under law. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ lGOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 22nd December, 2009 l lNote: Furnish C.C. by two days. l (b/o) l CBS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·WRIT PETITION No.27967 of 2009 ·(Disposed of) 22nd December, 2009 l l lNote: Furnish C.C. by two days. l (b/o) l CBS l