Dismissed

Elukurthi Madan Mohan, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC1 Nov 2019WP/6834/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed seeking mandamus against police officials for alleged harassment and interference in a private land dispute. The court relied on respondent instructions stating no criminal case existed and the matter is a civil dispute, holding no further cause survives.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed; no further objection will be entertained.

Elukurthi Madan Mohan, Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. KESHAVA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.6834 of 2014

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

¶5

The prayer sought in the writ petition is as under:

¶6

“… to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in interfering with petitioner personal life and possession over the agriculture land to an extent of Acres 2.20 guntas in Sy.No.740 (new) 1263 (old) situated at Fort Warangal, Revenue Village of Warangal Mandal at the instance of the 4^th respondent and threatening the petitioner with dire consequences and summoning the petitioner to the police station and confining him in the police station without any reason as being highly arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and offending Article 14, 19(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent not to interfere with petitioner personal life and possession over the agriculture land to an extent of acres 2.20 guntas in Sy.No.740 (new) 1263 (old) situated at Fort Warangal, Revenue Village of Warangal Mandal in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶7

Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 placed on record written instructions dated 18.03.2014 issued by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Mills Colony Police Station, Warangal District.

¶8

From a perusal of the said written instructions, it is evident that the respondent police have never harassed, threatened or interfered with the possession over the agricultural land in Sy.No.740 (new) 1263 (old) situated at Fort Warangal Mandal as alleged by the petitioner. As on the date of issuance of the written instructions, no criminal case was registered against the petitioner on the file of the Mills Colony Police Station, Warangal District. The allegation that respondent Nos.1 to 3 are interfering with the life and liberty of the petitioner and also possession of his land at the instance of the 4^th respondent is also denied referring it as baseless and far from truth. It is further mentioned in the written instructions that after going through the contents of the affidavit, it

¶9

¶10

appears that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the 4^th respondent with regard to the above said land in a civil Court of Warangal District and the respondent police have nothing to do with it. The petitioner is unnecessarily involving the respondent police into civil litigation.

¶11

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that no further cause would survive in the writ petition and the same is liable to be closed.

¶12

Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs.

¶13

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶14

_____________________
P. KESHAVA RAO, J
Date: 01.11.2019.
ES

Elukurthi Madan Mohan, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elukurthi Madan Mohan, 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

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

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

Saini Thirupathi Vs The Superintendent of Police

Ch.Ram Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Dr.Ch.Jaipal Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Arif , Arif, Hyd Vs Prl. Secy., Home Dept., Hyd and 2 Othrs