Disposed

Betharaju Krishnam Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC11 Jul 2018WP/20585/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging police interference in civil construction dispute was disposed of. Court directed the 4th respondent not to interfere with civil disputes or construction, directing parties to seek remedies in the Civil Court, while reserving police investigation powers.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing the 4th respondent not to interfere with civil disputes or the petitioner's construction activities.

Betharaju Krishnam Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITON No.20585 of 2018

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

¶4

“…… to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4^th respondent in interfering in civil matter and not allowing the petitioner to proceed with construction at the premises bearing D.No.6-1-65/1/1 Sri Puram colony, K.T.Road, Tirupathi town as illegal, arbitrary and without any authority and consequently direct the 4^th respondent not to interfere with the construction at the premises bearing D.No.6-1-65/1/1 Sri Puram colony, K.T.Road, Tirupathi town, and pass such other or further order or orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶5

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home produced written instructions on behalf of the respondentpolice stating that basing on the complaint of the petitioner, a case in Cr.No.195 of 2018 was registered against the 5^th respondent and 20 others. The allegation of the petitioner that at the instance of the 5^th respondent, the 4^th respondent has summoned the petitioner to the police station is denied.

¶6

The case of the petitioner is that he filed suit in O.S.NO.536 of 2015 for declaration of title and permanent injunction and the same was decreed on 22-03-2017 against the 5^th respondent and another and thereafter the 5^th respondent filed O.S.No.58 of 2018 and notice was issued in

¶7

¶8

the injunction petition in the said suit and counter is filed by the petitioner and the matter is pending.

¶9

In this case, the writ petition is directed against the 4^th respondent and the 4^th respondent denies that he has stopped the construction and also he is interfering with the construction made by the petitioner. This writ petition is not filed for deciding the interse disputes between the petitioner and the 5^th respondent. As the matter is already pending before the civil Court, it goes without saying that the 4^th respondent cannot interfere with the disputes nor stop the construction activities of the petitioner.

¶10

In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4^th respondent not to interfere with the civil disputes and also construction made by the petitioner. However the petitioner and the 5^th respondent shall work out their remedies in the civil Court. However, this order will not preclude the respondent-police from investigating into any offence.

¶11

As a sequel to the disposal of this petition, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶12

_________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J

¶13

11-07-2018 Nvl

¶14

¶15

Betharaju Krishnam Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Betharaju Krishnam Raju v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Zia-Ui-Islam Educational Society Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Chinthireddy Kodanda Ram Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

M.Kishore Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Srinivas Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Namala Rajeswari Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Pilli Mahesh Goud Vs The State of Telangana