Dismissed

P. Prabhakar, v. The Chief Executive Officer

Telangana HC6 Mar 2013WP/6648/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the Cantonment Board to demolish a compound wall allegedly raised illegally during a pending civil dispute involving the same land. The Court held that as the property is the subject matter of a pending civil suit, the Court will not intervene. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition for mandamus was dismissed; interim relief was declared infructuous.

P. Prabhakar, Vs The Chief Executive Officer — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.6648 of 2013

¶3

Date: 06.03.2013

¶4

Between: P.Prabhakar and three others.

¶5

..... Petitioners

¶6

And

¶7

The Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Secunderabad and three others.

¶8

.....Respondents

¶9

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri G.Kalyan Chakravarthy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad Standing Counsel for Cantonment Board

¶10

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶11

This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the purported inaction of respondent No.1 in demolishing a compound wall stated to have been raised by respondent Nos.2 to 4 as illegal and arbitrary.

¶12

I have heard Sri G.Kalyan Chakravarthy, the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The petitioners averred that there is a civil dispute pending between them and respondent Nos.2 to 4 with regard to 787 square yards of land in Survey Nos.74, 100/1, 100/2, 100/3, 102 and 103 of Tirumalgherry Village, Secunderabad. The said civil dispute was initiated by the petitioners by filing O.S.No.637 of 2012 in

¶13

the Court of the learned I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, wherein interim order of injunction is stated to have been granted on 23.11.2012. The petitioners have alleged that on 25.11.2012, respondent Nos.2 to 4 have forcibly entered the site, removed the sheds and constructed a compound wall.

¶14

The grievance of the petitioners is that even though they have approached respondent No.1 with a request to him to take appropriate action for removal of the compound wall raised by respondent Nos.2 to 4, without permission, no action has been taken by him so far.

¶15

In my opinion, when the aforementioned property is subject matter of a civil dispute before a competent civil Court, the petitioners cannot drag respondent No.1 into the said litigation. If respondent Nos.2 to 4 have violated the order of injunction, the petitioners have a remedy of initiating appropriate proceedings against them before the civil Court itself.

¶16

In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to entertain this Writ Petition.

¶17

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate relief in the pending suit.

¶18

As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.8325 of 2013 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous.

¶19

___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

¶20

06^th March 2013 DR

P. Prabhakar, v. The Chief Executive Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Prabhakar, v. The Chief Executive Officer

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

P.Paradesi Naidu Vs Sri. Srinivasa Rao

M. Thirupalaiah Chetty, Vs D.K. Srinivasa Rao (Died per L.R.)

Tammana Sai Rama Rao, S/o. Sriramulu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Sri Sai Srinivasa Constructions, Vs The General Manager

Marella Sujatha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

Fareeda Hussaini, Vs The State Govt. of A.P.