In W.P. No. 6334 of 2006, petitioner alleged police interference with property possession. The court dismissed the petition as the allegations were not rebutted by the respondent's counter-affidavit stating no interference and disputed nature of premises.
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
W.P.NO. 6334 OF 2006
DATED: 5.6.2006
Between:
Mohd. Farooq
… Petitioner
and
Commissioner of Police,
Twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and others
… Respondents
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM
W.P.NO.6334 OF 2006
ORAL ORDER:
The writ petition is filed complaining that the respondents, in particular the 3rd respondent is interfering with the possession of the petitioner and his principal over their property bearing No.18-8-211 admeasuring 533 square yards at Kanchanbagh, Riyasatnagar, Hyderabad.
The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that one Shaik Fareed, a resident of Physalbanda, Santoshnagar had lodged a complaint on 15.2.2006 with the answering respondents against the petitioner and others alleging that he is in possession of the premises since long time and that on the basis of certain status quo orders, certain persons including the petitioner are claiming the land as belonging to them and that on 14.2.2006 the petitioner and others forcibly trespassed into the land, threatened the complainant and his employees and therefore the complainant had requested necessary action be taken. According to the 3rd respondent, on the basis of the said complaint, Cr.No.31 of 2006 was registered alleging offences under Sections 506 and 447 of IPC on 15.2.2006 and investigation taken up. The counter affidavit of the 3rd respondent further states that Shaik Fareed had earlier lodged another complaint on 11.2.2006 complaining that some unknown persons had entered his premises and committed theft of certain specified material. This complaint was registered as Cr.No.29 of 2006 under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC. In the investigation, no evidence was forthcoming that there was a theft of articles and the case was therefore referred to as a mistake of fact and final report is yet to be filed. The counter affidavit categorically denies the allegation of the petitioner that the police are interfering with the properties of the petitioner and
his principal. It is stated that the properties are highly contentious and disputed properties and that in any event the respondents are not interfering.
In view of the averments in the counter affidavit which have not been rebutted, no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
GODA RAGHURAM, J
Date: 5.6.2006
CVM
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging police interference with property possession deserves admission.
Mohd. Farooq
Commissioner of Police, Twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad
Godi Raghuram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
