Dismissed

Smt.N.Seetamani v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC14 Sept 2020WP/15488/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC challenged police interference with the petitioner's peaceful possession of property. The court held the matter was a civil dispute regarding disputed title and that police were bound to investigate a registered complaint. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed to avoid thwarting the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition under Article 226 CPC dismissed without costs. No interim direction granted to stop police investigation or visitation.

Smt.N.Seetamani Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 15488 OF 2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt.N.Seetamani, W/o.N. Venkata Raju, Aged 85 years, Occ.Household, R/o. H.No.6-2-609/128, Anandnagar Colony, Khairathabad, H yderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶14

Station House officer, Ivliyapur Police Station, Hyderabad

¶15

Valeti Himavantha Rao, S/o. Raghava Rao, Aged 55 years, Occ. B usiness/Agriculture, Rl/o. Gannapavaram Village, Nadendla Mandal, Guntur District' Andhra Pradesh

¶16

...RE''.NDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property to the extent of 156 Sq.yards in Plot No.252 in the layout consistrng Ac.23.10 Gts in Sy.Nos.54B, 55 and 60 of [i/adinaguda Village, Serilingampally mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State by the petitioner at the instance of the respondent No.4, as illegal and arbitrary and further direct the 3rd respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner to the extent of 156 Sq.yards in Plot No.252 in the layout consisting Ac.23.10 Gts in Sy.Nos.s4B, 55 and 60 of [Madinaguda Village, Serilingampally mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim direction directing the 3rd respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner society to the extent of 156 Sq.yards in Plot No.252 in the layout consisting Ae.23. 10 Gts in Sy.Nos.54B, 55 and 60 of N4adinaguda Village, Serilingampally mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State, pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C. RAGHU

¶21

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: ASSISTANT Gp FOR HOME

¶22

Counsel for Respondent No. 4: --

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

)

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.15488 OF 2O2O

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

¶29

Petitioner claims that she purchased 156 sq. yards of houge plot bearing No.252 in the layout consisting Acs.23.10 guntas in Survey Nos.54B, 55 & 60 of Madinaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioner now alleges that at the instance of respondent No.4 herein, the Station House Officer, Miyapur Police Station, Hyderabad, respondent No.3, is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property owned by the petitioner.

¶30

The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and the material placed on record would disclose that there is an inter se dispute between the society which formed the layout and from whom the petitioner purchased the plot mentioned above and the protected tenants claiming that the original owner who sold the land to^{the societydid not} have a valid title to the property and therefore the entire^{sale transaction} is vitiated and consequential formation of^{layout is also illegal. It} appears, the society from whom^{the petitionerpurchasedthe landwas} successful before this Court in^{C.R.P.No.4935of 2008 and batch along} with W.P.Nos.34575 of 2Ol4^{and 29293 of 2010' Aggrieved by the} decision of this Court in^{the abovematters,S.L.P.No.536of 2019 was} fi1ed and the Hon'ble^{SupremeCourt directed maintenance of statusquo} by order dated 29.04.2019.^{The Vigneswara Cooperative House Building} Society lodged complaint^{with respondent No.3 on 23.O8.2O2O alleging} that respondent No.4 herein is trying^{to interfere with the peaceful}

¶31

-l

¶32

possession and enjoyment of the subject property purchased by the petitioner and other members of the society. Police registered crime on the said date bearing Crime No.799 of 2O2O. It appears, police are investigating into the crime. While so, this writ petition is filed alleging that police are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property owned by the petitioner at the instance of responden_t No.4 and they are trying to assist respondent No.4 to take possession. In other words, petitioner claims to be in possession of the subject land and apprehends threat of dispossession by respondent No.4. If that so, it is purely a civil dispute and the remedy is before the appropriate civil Court.

¶33

Furthermore, even assuming that respondent No.4 is aided by respondent No.3, petitioner ought to have lodged a complaint with the higher authorities alleging interference in civil disputes by respondent No.3. Be that as it may, once a complaint is lodged, police are bound to investigate into the crime. It is the consistent grievance of persons, as evident from several writ petitions instituted in this Court that crimes are not registered, there is delay in conducting investigation, arrest and filing of final report. Thus, when police are investigating into the crime this Court cannot mandate not to investigate. Further, having regard to the nature of complaint lodged by the society, police are bound to visit the place of iocation of the land in issue and in that process, if the police visit the property claimed by the petitioner, she cannot complain interference with her possession. Apprehension expressed by the property owner alleging interference with his/her possession and enjoyment by a private party is entirely different from police visiting the site.

¶34

¶35

Learned Assistant Government Pleader also clarifies that police are visiting the site only to ascertain the facts in aid of investigating into Crime No.799 of 2O2O -

¶36

Having regard to these facts, if a direction is issued to the police, as sought by the petitioner, it would be amounting to thwarting the investigation already taken up by the police in Crime No.799 of 2O2O. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy, if she apprehends dispossession and enjoyment of her property with active involvement of police, before the competent Court/ appropriate authority. It is made clear that there is no expression of opinion on merits and on the nature of crime registered against respondent No.4. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.

¶37

SD/. K.SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGI9TRAR ,TRUE COPY' \1,,/\J' SECTION OFFICER

¶38

To, 1. One CC to Sri C Raghu Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCslo GP for f,ome,^{High Cdurt for ihe State of Telangana (OUT)} 3. Two CD Copies N/BC \ V

¶39

HIGH COURT

¶40

DATED: 1410912020

¶41

H E s rA ,.
o 18 SP2m a
,
* DF.S F'

¶42

ORDER

¶43

WP.No.15488 of²⁰²⁰

¶44

DISMISSING THE WRIT^PETITION

¶45

WITHOUT COSTS

¶46

y€ q >c

Smt.N.Seetamani v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.N.Seetamani v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Ravinder Reddy Vs Sri Somesh Kumar, Ias.and 2 Others

D.Sai Reddy Vs Smt.B.Kalavathi Bai

Hamza Hazrami Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

S.Santoshi Vs The State of Telangana

Pambali Venkatesh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.a.Waheed Vs The State of Tclangana