Smt. M. Rajavva, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC31 Oct 2019WP/3483/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a declaration and injunction against respondents allegedly meddling with his property rights. The court, noting that respondents were not interfering and the related criminal case ended in acquittal, found no further cause to survive and closed the petition, advising the petitioner to take appropriate steps if a violation occurs in the future.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed. The petitioner is directed to take appropriate steps if the judgment and decree in O.S.No.709 of 2009 is violated.

Smt. M. Rajavva, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO WRIT PETITION No.3483 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned

¶4

Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶5

The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under:-

¶6

“ …to issue a writ or order more particularly one in nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the respondents 1 to 5 have no right to meddle with petitioner’s property rights in spite of judgment and decree in O.S.No.709/2009, dt.15.09.2009 of the Hon’ble Civil Court and to interfere in the rights of the petitioner over the premises No.1-57/73-A in Plot No.73-A admeasuring 200 Sq. yards and steps to help Ch.V.Radha Krishna and batch of elements violating the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.709 of 2009 as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and consequently directions to the respondents not to cause any illegal interference in the enjoyment of the petitioner’s property bearing premises No.1-57/73-A and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶7

During the course of hearing, learned Government Pleader placed on record the written instructions, dated 30.10.2019, issued by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate.

¶8

From a perusal of the said written instructions, it is revealed that on the complaint lodged by one Ch.Radhakrishna i.e., the 6^th respondent herein, a case in Crime No.531 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 447, 420 and 506 IPC was registered on the file of the Madhapur Police Station. During the course of investigation,

¶9

¶10

witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded. After completion of investigation, final report was also filed and after taking cognizance of the offences, the case is taken on the file as C.C.No.394 of 2014 on the file of the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. It is also mentioned in the written instructions that the said case ended in acquittal.

¶11

Learned Government Pleader also brought to the notice of this Court that respondent Nos.1 to 5 are not interfering with the petitioner’s property nor helping the 6^th respondent and his associates in violating the judgment and decree in O.S.No.709 of 2009.

¶12

In the light of the said submission, this Court is of the opinion that no further cause would survive in the writ petition.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. However, it is open for the petitioner to take appropriate steps, if the judgment and decree in O.S.No.709 of 2009 is violated, as per law.

¶14

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶15

___________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J

¶16

mar

¶17

31^st October 2019

Smt. M. Rajavva, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M. Rajavva, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

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

Mohd Ghouse Pasha, Vs Mohd. Hafiz and Another

Mohd.Khaja Mohiuddin Qadri, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Manisha Agri Biotech Pvt. Ltd. a Company Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Nawab Md.Zafaruddin Khan Vs The Station House Officer

M.T.Satheesan Palayad, Vs The State of Telangana

Gaddam Nagaraju, Vs The Government of Telangana rep by its Principal