Petitioners challenged police orders preventing entry to their party office. The Court held police cannot adjudicate civil ownership disputes but must maintain law and order.
Police directed not to interfere in inter-se civil disputes concerning the property premises.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAYOF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSANDANDTWENTY
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 13894 OF 2020
Betwee n:
1 CHANDA LINGAIAH DORA, S/o. Sammaiah Dora (Late), Aged about 70 years, Occ.Ex-IVLA and EX-ZP Chairman (KN/M), R/o. H.No.5-8, Chirumalla Vg. and Gram Panchayat, Karakagudem ivlandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, T.S. 2 fqDEN/VEERAIAH, S/o. Podem Sammaiah,Aged about 55 years, Occ.IVLA Llt{gln?urof Legislative Asqempty) Bhadrachatani Constituency, Telangana,and DCC President of Bhadradri Kolhagudem District, F/o. H.No.17-1-BOi7, S.R.N. colony, Bhadrachalam Town and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem olsirict so7 111, T.S.
AND
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropnate order or writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Itzlandamus or any other Writ order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 for not allowing the petitioners from enterjng into their party office as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequenfly direct the respondents 2 and 3 not to interfere with the peacefull possession of the petitioners party office illegally in interfering and d isturbing the Petitioners
IANo:1OF 2020
petition under Section 151 Cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents No.2 and 3 not to iregalry interfere and prevent the petitioners in entering to their congress party office premises at Manuguru and access the material which is placed there pending disposal of the main writ petition
IA NO;20 F 2020
petition under Section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased ro permir to amend the "para No.(10) of the writ Affjdavit in t|re w p No. 13891 0f 2O2o by correcting the',para No.10,,i.e., the amended paragraph (10) as follows:
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRIM. P. KASHYAP
Counsel for Respondents:GP FORHOME
The Court made thefollowing:ORDER
HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE P'NAVEENRAO
WRIT PETITIONNO.l3894 0F 2020
ORDER:
Hr:ard Iearnedcounselfor thepetlhoners and lcarncd Assistant GovernmentPleaderfor Home'
-J-
4-
the said action of police amounts to highhanded exercise of porver and interfering in inter se cir.il disputes.
,! Learned Assistant Government plcader docs not disputc the lact that so far no crimes are reported and there is no issue pcndir-rg u.jth the police ro lnvesttgate rnto. Hou,ever, the r:orrcspondence made to the Ta h sildar and the Municipal Commissioner seem to point out that there \.as some protest plan on 06.09.2020. This factum of holding protest is also not denie<l b1, learned counsel lor the petitioners. However, learned counsel for the petitioners sought to exprain that since petitioners were not allowed to enter into the building, they resorted to protest. Be that as it may, apparently, there was some apprehension of breach of peace. Therefore, ir is the Seq;1d66 duty of police to ensure that no un toq'ard rncident happens and peace and tranquiility ]S marntained in the area and in that process the_y are entitled to makc all bandobast arrangemen ts Thus, the role of po.lice rs onlv to cnsure that law and order is marn tained and no untou.ard rncidcnt happens. Thc police can not entcr tnto in ter se civil dispu tes and can not go iitto Lhe erspec t of u,ho is the ora.ncr of propert,: and u,h o rs entrtled to occup,. the subjcct propert,,. Il there are disputes on ou.nership and occupation, rtjs for the partles to resolve the sarrre, in accordancc n.ith iar,r
9.H avrng regard to the above and the prayer sought in the writ peti on, the Writ petition is disposed oI directing the police not to interfere in inter se civil disputes concerning the property bearing D. No.8- l -2OO /2. Manuguru, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Hou,ever, poiice are entit.led to ensure that no untoward incident hzrppens and shall take all rneasures to ensure peace is
-i
maintained. It is made r:lear that the Court has r.rot gonc into thc aspect of r,vho is the ou,ner of propertY and ri,ho rs ir_r possessiorr ancl it is lor the partics to resolve the dispute in accorci:rnce ri.itl.r lau,. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.
SD/.K.AMMAJI
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// V
SECTION OFFICER
To,
IVBC
\ 'j}"="
HIGH COURT
(
DATED: 1011112020
1 H E, s l-4
(
q
l
,J 21Noll2U0
<br>D
ORDER
WP.No.13894 of2020
DISPOSINGOF THE WRIT PETITION
\,ITHOUTCOSTS 1r! 2\ <sup>t\rO
2 issues framed by the court
Whether police can prevent entry into a site claimed by a political party where title and ownership are disputed.
Whether police action in preventing entry amounts to interference in inter se civil disputes affecting political parties.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
CHANDA LINGAIAH DORA
VEERAIAH
STATE OF TELANGANA
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BHADRADRI KOTHAGUDEM DISTRICT
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, BURGAAMPADU
P. NAVEEN RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
