IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Mrs. Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.
Kethe Naga Malleswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh and others – Respondent
Crl. P No.88 of 2022
Decided On : 14-10-2024
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of a petition under section 482 for quashing orders. (Para 1) |
| 2. factual background of land dispute and complaint (Para 2) |
| 3. arguments presented by both sides concerning jurisdiction and authority. (Para 3) |
| 4. arguments about jurisdiction and legal authority (Para 4 , 5) |
| 5. court's analysis on the impugned order and its alignment with statutory provisions. (Para 6 , 8 , 12) |
| 6. court's analysis of evidence and legal standings (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 7. legal reasoning supporting the decision (Para 11 , 13) |
| 8. final decision to dismiss the petition (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT/ORDER :
The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'), has been filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the Order dated 16.12.2021 passed in MC No.217 of 2021 under Section 147 Cr.P.C., by the learned Mandal Executive Magistrate, Nuzvid.
2. The facts that led to filing of the present petition, in brief, are as follows :
(a) On 07.12.2021, respondent No.2 herein addressed a letter to the Tahsildar-cum-Mandal Executive Magistrate, Nuzvid Mandal, Nuzvid stating that the Deputy Executive Engineer, Construction Sub-Division-III, Gunadala, Vijayawada lodged a complaint with him on 01.12.2021 alleging that A.P. TRANSCO got approval for erection of 132/33 KV Sub-Station in a land of an extent of Acs.6.07 cents in RS Nos.469/2 and 492/2 situated at Digavalli Village alongwith connected lines for providing 9 hours agriculture power supply in day time to the farmers and A.P. TRANSCO acquired the said land by paying requisite compensation to the land owners and got it registered in its name with rights to use the common approach road of 15 feet from the existing R&B BT Road upto the sub-station. It was further in the said complaint that the petitioner herein, who is the owner of the adjacent land alongwith his son willfully blocked the approached road and obstructed the movements of the men and material into the sub-station site.
(b) Based on the said complaint, when respondent No.2 summoned and questioned the petitioner and his son, they stated that the approach road leads to their agricultural fields and the owner, who sold the said land to A.P. TRANSCO has no rights to pass on the said approach road.
(c) As there was possibility of arising Law & Order problem at Digavalli Village, respondent No.2 requested the Tahsildar, Nuzvid to take appropriate steps to prevent untoward incidents.
(d) On receipt of the said letter, The Mandal Executive Magistrate, Nuzvid issued a notice dated 07.12.2021 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein and petitioner and his sons to appear before him within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice and to submit their objections and documents.
(e) Having received the said notice, petitioner herein and his sons filed a counter submitting that their properties are situated in RS Nos.492/3 and 469/3 and they have no landed properties in RS Nos.462/3 and 492/2 of Digavalli Village and they never interfered in the said lands; that respondent No.3 herein and his vendors have been interfering with their possession and enjoyment of their property and trying to lay a new road alongwith the eastern boundary of their land without any right. It is further submitted that as they are unable to resist the highhanded acts of respondent No.3 herein and his vendors, petitioner herein filed a suit in OS No.392 of 2021 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid against them for permanent injunction and also filed IA No.177 of 2021 therein and the same are pending enquiry.
(f) On considering the report submitted by the V.R.O., Digavalli and on perusing the satellite images of A.P. Satellite Application Center and Google Earth Images, having found that, the way has been existing for so many years to the lands which have been under possession and enjoyment of A.P. TRANSCO and the petitioner herein and his sons are trying to obstruct the same, the learned Mandal Executive Magistra
AI
The court upheld the Executive Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 147 Cr.P.C. to maintain public order without adjudicating property title amid pending civil litigation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction under Section 147 Cr.P.C. is intended to maintain public order and peace, and the orders passed by the Executive Magistrate a....
The court emphasized that a conditional order under Section 133 of Cr.P.C. is mandatory for initiating proceedings, and failure to comply renders subsequent actions invalid.
A set-aside order has no legal standing and cannot be used as the basis for subsequent actions; the Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Cr.P.C. is limited to maintaining temporary peac....
Judicial orders must adhere strictly to procedural requirements outlined in the Cr. P. C. for validity.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority and limitations of the Executive Magistrate in deciding possession of disputed land under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
Under Section 147(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a Magistrate can issue mandatory injunctions to remove obstructions, maintaining status quo until a civil court resolves the matter.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.