Dismissed

Niranjan Singh v. Deputy Commissioner of Police

Telangana HC13 Jun 2006WP/10627/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition aggrieved by the first respondent 's inaction on his complaint regarding alleged encroachment on his vacant land at Banjara Hills. The court dismissed the petition, holding that safeguarding private property is not the primary function of the police given meager forces and more pressing priorities.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Niranjan Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner of Police — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶2

W.P.NO. 10627 OF 2006

DATED: 13.6.2006

Between:

Niranjan Singh

… Petitioner

¶7

and

¶8

Deputy Commissioner of Police,

¶9

West Zone and others

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM

¶12

W.P.NO.10627 OF 2006

¶13

ORAL ORDER:

¶14

The writ petition is filed aggrieved that the 1^st respondent has not taken action on the petitioner’s complaint dated 10.5.2006. The complaint reads as under:

¶15

“I request you Sir to help me from some unwanted elements who are trying forcibly to occupy my land at Rd.No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad by the above named persons with false and fake documents.

¶16

I am submitting these documents and certified copies obtained from District Registrar, Mojamjahi Market. The documents pertain to some property at Aghapura but not that of Banjara Hills. Subsequent developments shows plot No.22 as their plot. But the MCH layout shows that the plot No.22 exists at some other place.

¶17

I request you Sir to help me from these antisocial elements from grabbing my plot and lock the premises.”

¶18

The petitioner’s grievance appears to be that his vacant property of 990 sq.yards in plot No.51/5, having municipal No…8-2-370/A/1, Banjara Hills, might be encroached upon by some unknown persons. In paragraph (5) of the writ petition, the petitioner states that somebody put a lock over the compound wall gate and when the petitioner tried to open the same “some unsocial elements came and threatened him with dire consequences if I remove the lock”. It is also pleaded by the petitioner that on enquiry he learnt that a number of persons have been claiming the land with a view to cause illegal loss. The petitioner also states that the land is the subject matter of a number of criminal cases.

¶19

The petitioner in substance wants the respondents to preserve his

¶20

property from current and future land grabbers. Such perpetual and interminable safeguarding of the petitioner’s lands is not the primary function of the police. It would be ideal if there were enough policemen in the State who could safeguard the property of every citizen. That does not appear pragmatic however. In the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of the meager police forces available in the State on whose services there are huge demands and more pressing priorities, safeguarding of private property and preserving the ownership and integrity of such properties comes nowhere near the predominant rational priorities of the police forces of the State.

¶21

In the circumstances, the inaction of the respondents in response to the petitioner’s complaint dated 10.5.2006 does not appear actionable. There are no merits. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶22

GODA RAGHURAM, J

¶23

Date: 13.6.2006

¶24

CVM

Niranjan Singh v. Deputy Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan Singh v. Deputy Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri P.v.a.S.Nehru Mohan Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Valluri Venkata Swamy, Vs State of a.P., rep. by District Collector

Teyagura Poli Reddy Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Endowments

Nandimpalli Surapa Raju, Vs The Commissioner of Endowments

Syed Sayeed Pasha, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board

T. Arun Kumar, Vs The District Collector