Disposed

Abida Begum, v. The Director General of Police

Telangana HC8 Aug 2012WA/923/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the single Judge erred in making observations regarding property title where a civil suit is pending. The Court clarified that such observations will not influence the civil court. The writ appeal was disposed of subject to this observation and with a direction to communicate a pending order to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Civil court shall remain uninfluenced by the observations made in this writ appeal. Respondents to communicate a pending order to the appellant within one week.

Abida Begum, Vs The Director General of Police — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT APPEAL NO.923 OF 2012

¶3

Dt: 08-08-2012.

¶4

Between:

¶5

ABIDA BEGUM .. APPELLANT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GOVT. OF A.P., LAKDIKAPUL, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS

¶8

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO.923 OF 2012

¶10

JUDGMENT: (Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

¶11

This writ appeal is directed against an order dated 09-06-2012 passed by the Hon’ble single Judge in W.P.No.7925 of 2012, which was filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not taking action against respondent Nos.5 and 6 for interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner’s properties as arbitrary and illegal; and further a direction may be issued to the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take appropriate action against respondent Nos.5 and 6. The Hon’ble single Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the writ petition holding that prima facie no material is filed to show that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are interfering with the civil disputes and that even assuming for a moment the contention of the petitioner is to be accepted, police are conducting investigation in accordance with law and further that since the police are not interfering in the civil disputes, the prayer sought for cannot be granted.

¶12

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Hon’ble single Judge, this writ appeal is filed.

¶13

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

It appears this writ appeal has been filed only with regard to the observation made by the Hon’ble single Judge insofar as the title in respect of the property in question. It appears that a civil suit is pending before the civil Court. The civil Court is seized over the matter in question. We find that the observation which has been made by the Hon’ble single Judge should

¶15

not have been made since the civil suit is pending before the civil Court. We make it clear that such observation will not stand in the way to decide the suit by the Civil Court in any manner whatsoever and he shall be uninfluenced by such an observation.

¶16

It appears that a representation dated 7.3.2012 has been filed by the appellant before the respondents 1 to 4. We have been informed by learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 that the said representation has already been considered, but the order has not yet been communicated to the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 shall communicate such order to the appellant within a period of one week from today.

¶17

Subject to the above observation, this writ appeal is disposed of.

¶18

( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ )

¶19

( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,

¶20

J )

¶21

Dt: 08-08-2012.

¶22

TNB

Abida Begum, v. The Director General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abida Begum, v. The Director General 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

K. Prabhaker Sharma Vs The District Collector and Magistrate

Jai Bheem Karmika Sankshema Sangham, Vs Sri Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Swamy Vari Devasthanam

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Dr. T.E. Kasturi

Siri Microfin Society, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kandlakunta Rajamohan Vs Uco Bank, rep. by its Authorised Officer

Bole Chinna Subba Rao, Vs The District Collector