Case BriefsHigh Courts

Hyderabad High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Gudiseva Shyam Prasad, J. dismissed a writ petition at the admission stage on account of it being misconceived.

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking the relief in the nature of writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India over the protection and preservation of his title and possession over the land which was being interfered with by the defendants.

The defendant pressed upon the fact that instead of resorting to the present writ petition along with seeking police protection, the petitioners should have approached the court by way of execution petition.

The Court agreed with the submission of the defendants that it was a civil matter and if the petitioner needed police aid he should have had sought for the orders for the same. The police cannot interfere in any civil dispute unless directed by any competent court to its effect.

Accordingly, with regard to the misconceived writ petition, the matter stood closed. [Tirumala Siva Prasad v. State of A.P.,2018 SCC OnLine Hyd 262, order dated 17-04-2018]

Case BriefsForeign Courts

Supreme Court of Sri Lanka: A 3-Judge Bench comprising of S. Eva Wanasundera, Vijith K. Malalgoda, PCJ. and H.N.J. Perera, J., upheld the order passed by District Court, where petitioner was granted damages for loss to cultivated crops.

Facts of the case were that petitioner was in possession of a 15 acres land, where he was cultivating for a long time. A road running parallel to their land was elevated by the respondent due to which at the time of heavy rains the land of petitioner got water logged causing damage to the cultivation done. The plaintiff had prayed for damages of Rs. 150000/- before the District Court. District Court favoured petitioner and hence an appeal was preferred before the High Court by respondents. High Court set aside the District Court’s judgment and thus appeal was filed before the Apex Court. Respondents had contended that the land was being used illegally by petitioner and the same was a lake with the road as bund. Whereas the petitioner showed evidence to prove that the land belonged to him and that he had been using the same for a long time.

Supreme Court was of the view that High Court erred in identifying the cause of action which makes the case of acquilian action and not of servitude. It was observed that High Court took their own argument, not argued by the parties in order to conclude the matter. The Supreme Court held that Appellate Court cannot take up an argument, not argued by the parties and thus they acted incorrectly, misconceiving the nature of the case and the cause of action. Therefore, High Court’s judgment was set aside affirming the judgment of the District Court. [Dodampahala Gamage Gunapala v. K.P.Nuwan Ranjan De Silva,2018 SCC OnLine SL SC 72, decided on 16-10-2018]