Disposed

M/s Go Green Motors India Pvt. Ltd. and another v. State of Telangana and 9 others

Telangana HC24 Dec 2021WP/2083/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenants operating a vehicle workshop complained of police-assisted forcible eviction and demolition. The court found that police supported the dispossession instead of preventing it. It directed the Commissioner of Police to enquire into the episode, take action against the culprits in accordance with law, and personally supervise the criminal investigation.

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Police directed to enquire, take lawful action against culprits including respondents 5 to 10, and personally supervise investigation in Cr.No.34 of 2021.

M/s Go Green Motors India Pvt. Ltd. and another Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

HIGH GOURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEN/BER TWO THOUSAND ANO TWENTY ONE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 2083 oF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1 . M/s Go Green Motors lndia Pvt. Ltd., A company incorporated under lndian Companies Act, having its office at Plot Nos.20 and 2 '1, P.J.R.Nagar, Kondapur Road,Gachibowli, Hyderabad rep.by it's Managing Director P. Sanjay Anand

¶10

1. P.Sanjay Anand, S/o P.Anand Rao, Aged about. 43 years Occ.Managing Director, at Plot No. 131 to 134, Sy.No.S1, Diamond Hills, Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal Ranga Reddy District - 500032

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad-500022

¶14

. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-500032 3. The Dy.Commissioner of Police Madhapur zone,^{CyberabadPolice} Commissionarate, Beside.llT Junction Beside.JNlDB,^{BHEL Road, Gachibowli,} Hyderabad-500032

¶15

Siation House officer, PS Raidurgam^{lVadhuranagar colony' Raidurgam} Hyderabad-500032 |

¶16

lvlbhammed Abdul Mannan, S/o. Mr.^{Mohammed Abdul Rasheed, Aged about 42} years, Occupation. Business, Rl/o. Flat No,402, Plot No.66,67, Geo^{Plaza, Bank} bf Baroda Lane, MDF Lane, Old Bowenpally,^{Hyderabad-500015.}

¶17

tt/ohammed Abdul Hameed, S/o.^{Irr'1r. lvlohammedAbdul Rasheed' Aged about 40} vears. Occupation. Business,^{Fl/O. FlatNo.402, Plot No.66,67, Geo Plaza, Bank}

¶18

bf^gaioda Lane, MDF Lane, Old^{Bowenpally, Hyderabad- 500015.}

¶19

Ivl.Sripal Reddy, s/o Bharat Reddy,^{aged 43'years'Occ..Busines-sr/o Flat No 402'} Plot Nos.66 arid 67, Geo Plaza,^{Ban[ of Barbda Lane, Military Diary Farm Road,} Old Bowenapally, Hyderabad-50001⁵

¶20

g. Mr. RavinAer, sio riot known to petitioner aged major, Occ'Circle lnspector of Police PS Raidurgam, Madhuranagar^{colony, Raidurgam Hyderabad-500032}

¶21

Mr.Sandeep Raj,-s/o'not known t6^{petition-er aged major, Occ.Sublnspector of} Police PS Raidurgam Madhuranagai^{colony, Raidurgam.Hyderabad-500032}

¶22

10.Mr. Anand Reddf, s/o not knownlo^{pelitioher agedTajol,} Qq..lgg!^Constable PS Raidurgam, Midhuranagar colony,^{RaidurgamHvderabad} .?.hf!rr.Orr,

¶23

Petition under Article 226 of^{the constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to issue appropriate^{writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ} of Mandamus declaring^{the action / inactionof respondentsin maintaining silence /} abettingthedestruction,demolitionoftheconstruclions'throwingoutthemenand machinery, implements,^{furniture, tools from premises bearing plot nos13'l to 134 in} Sy'no.5ladmeasuringaboutl000sq.yardsatGachibowli,serilingampallyMandal, RangaReddyDistrictasillegal'arbitrary,violativeofArticlel4'19'21and300-Aof constitution of^{lndia and issue a consequential directionto the respondents to}

P-tE.Fr-

// /

maintain peace, pft vent further demolition / destruction of the premises, provide police aid to the peti ioners / premises.

¶28

IAN 10F 2021

¶29

Petition unde Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in ;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the officiars respon( ents to grant porice aid to the petitioners in protecting the rife, liberty and property of the petitioners, its staff in respect of premises bearing prot no.131 to^.,l34 in sy.no.S.1 admeasuring about 1000 sq.'7a rd s at Gachibowli, Serilingampally M rndal, Ranga Reddy District, pe lding disposal of WP.No._/202..

¶30

IAN :2 oF 20 1

¶31

petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in s rpport of the petition, the High court may be preased to appoint advocate commissic ner to visit the site along, with an engineer, note down the physical features, I rke photographs, prepare a pran show,ing the demoritions, destructions carried out in the premises bearing prot no.,31 to 134 in sy.no.s1 admeasuring about 1000 sq'yards at Gachibowri, seriringampary Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, pendi rg disposal of Wp.No.=--- /2021.

¶32

Counsel for the peti. ioners; SRI J. PRABHAKAR

¶33

Counsel for the Resl ,ondent Nos. 1 to 4: AGp FOR HOME

¶34

COUNSCI fOr thc RES; ONdENt NOS., tO 7: SRI KULLAPAREDDY SURESH BABU

¶35

The Cou( made the ollowing: ORDER

¶36

¶37

¶38

I{oN'BLE SRI.IUSTICE K. I-AKSHMAN

¶39

\ RIl PETITIO\ No.2083 OF 2021

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the inaction of respondents in abetting demolition of the constructions, throwing out the men and machinery, implements, furniture and tools from the premises bearing Plot Nos.131 to 134 in Sy.No.5 I admeasuring about 1000 sq.yards at Gachibowli, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy district (for short, 'the subject^property') as illegal, and also^{issue consequentialdirectionto} the respondents to prevent further demolition of the premises and^provide police aid to the petitioners.

¶42

Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel lor the^petitioners and Sri S.Ram Mohan. Ieamed Additional Governtnent Pleader lor^Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Kullapareddy^{Suresh Babu,} leamed counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to^7. Perused^{the record.}

¶43

FACTS OF THE CASE

¶44

i) The 1" petitioner is a company^{registered underthe Indian} Companies Act and also a small^{scaleenterprise registeredas an MSME} Unit.

¶45

ii) The 2nd petitioner is^{its ManagingDirector'}

¶46

iii) The petitioners^{are runningautomobile showroomdealing in} the business of^{distribution,maintenanceand sale/marketing of two} wheelers manufactured^{by Royal Enfield (Unit of EicherMotors)'}

¶47

iv) In order to^{establisha Service Centre for servicingand} supplying spares^{of two rvheelersmanutacturedby RoyalEnfield'the2nd}

¶48

¶49

KL,J )4. P.I'to.2083 of 2021

¶50

petitioner obtain id on lease dilapidated shed comprising of plot Nos. 132 to 134 from its,,wners admeasuring about l000sq.yards for the purpose olrunning Roya Enfield vehicles Workshop and Service (len:re.

¶51

v) All the above Plots were clubbed together into single block and erected a shed a rd a civir construction work etc., is being carried out by them.

¶52

vi) The sr id Work shop and Servicing Centre is in existence more than eight (8) ye ars.

¶53

vii) The r espondent Nos.5 and 6 started demanding and harassing the petitioners t) vacate Plot No.l33 and threatened them that thev were forcibly evict th: petitioners.

¶54

viii) Whr n the petitioners expressed their inability to vacate the premises on thr ground that the lease is subsisting and the1, have made substantial inve;tments ror establishing work shop, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 started approaching political leaders, police and Municipal authorities lor t xerting pressure on them to vacate the sutrject premises.

¶55

ix) The c spure is u,ith regard to plot No. 133.

¶56

x) The r, spondent Nos.5 and 6 rried ro ev.ict rhe petitioners florr the subject prol erty by taking the law into their hands.

¶57

xi) The lnd petitioner had filed a suit vide O.S.No.3 15 of 2020 before the Ad< itional Junior civil Judge-cum-Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally ag rinst the respondent Nos.5 and 6 seeking perpetual injunction rest aining them and their men from interfering with his peaceful posser sion and enjoyment over the subject property.

¶58

¶59

KL,J lr. P.No.2083 of202l

¶60

xii) At the behest^{of the 5'h respondent,the GHMCauthorities} issued notice,^{dated l4'10.2020 alleging that the petitioners carriedout} unauthorized^{constructionof ground floorand commercialsheds without} maintaining^{set backs in PlotNo. I 33.}

¶61

on xiii) The^{petitionershavesubmitted their explanation} lg.lO.2O2O and22.l0.?020^{denying the saidallegations'}

¶62

xiv) Without^{consideringthe same,the GHMCauthorities' at the} instance of^{the respondent Nos.4 to 6, are interfering with the possession} of the petitioners^{over the Plot No' 133'}

¶63

xv) The^{2nd petitioner filed a suit vide O'S'No'697of 2020 before} the Additional Junior^{CivilJudge, Ku{atpally againstGHMC seeking} perpetual injunction^{restraining them from demolishing the structureson} the suit schedule^{propertytherein i e' Plot No' 1 33 '}

¶64

xvi) ,status^{qtto order dated04'01'2021 was passed in the said suit'}

¶65

xvii) The respondent^{Nos 5 and 6 are rnaking all sorts ol attempts} to get the^{petitioners evictedtiom the premises with the help of anti} social elements^{and also respondentNos'3 and 4 without followingdue} process of law.

¶66

xviii) The^{5th respondent executedGeneral Power of Attomey} (GPA) in favour^{of the7th respondent'The 7s respondent has hrdged a} complaint^{with the GHMCseekingremoval of the shed'}

¶67

xix) The^{7th respondent,in the capacity of GPA holder of the5th} respondent,^{filed writ petition vide W'P'No'19315of 2020against}

¶68

)

¶69

¶70

KL,J 14' P No.2t)83 o/ 202I

¶71

GHMC authori ies seeking a direction to them to remove the sheds in Plot No.l33. Tl e said writ petition is pending.

¶72

xx) On 2 ,.0 I .202 [ at about L I 5p.m.. the 6,r, respondent along with 20 others arm:d with boulders and draggers etc., entered into the workshop, bea the watchmen and other staff members and threatened them that they would be finished if the premises are not vacated. They carried on said llegal acts upto 6.41p.m. They have also used JCB in the said acts.

¶73

xxi) The Police came in Tnnova and supponed said i.legal acts of the respondent rlos.5 to 7.

¶74

xxii) De;pite dialing 100, there waqno response

¶75

xxiii) T lus, the oflcial respondents sr.rpportecl the unotl.icial respondents in demolishing the structures and removing the men and machinery etc. lrom the subject property.

¶76

xxiv) At the intervention of the Deputy Commissjoner of police, a case in Cr.No . ;4 of 2021 was registered on the complarnt lodged by the 2nd petitioner a ;ainst the unofficial respondents.

¶77

xxv) Th :refore, the respondent Nos.5 to 7, in collusion with the respondent No 4, 8 and 9, dispossessed the petitioners liom plot No. 133 and removed he men and machinery etc. from there. In proof of the same, the lear red counsel for the petitioners has also llled photographs and CD etc.

¶78

¶79

KL,J It/.P.No.2083 of202l

¶80

4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS

¶81

i) During pendency of the above said three suits^{and writ petition,} the respondent Nos.4, 8 to 10 have supported^{the respondentNos.5 to 7} in dispossessing the petitioners t'rom the subject^{property highhandedly,} in stead of pursuing the above said^{suits and writ petitionto evict the} petitioners from Plot No.133.

¶82

ii) The respondent Nos.4,⁸ to^{l0 being the responsible officials} instead of taking steps^{and action in accordancewith law, instead} supported the respondent^{Nos.5 to 7 in dispossessingthe petitioners from} the subject property and^{the sameis arbitrary and illegal.}

¶83

iii) With the said submissions,^{he s6ughtto allowthe writ petition'}

¶84

5. CONTENTI ONS OF^{THE 4th RESONDENT}

¶85

i) The 4th respondent^{has submitted writteninstructions,dated} 02.02.2021 wherein he^{has mentioned that on the complaintof the2nd} petitioner, a case in Cr.No.34^{of ?021 for the olfences punishable under} Sections 447,448.⁴²¹ ,323.504^{and 506 read with 34 of the IPC on} 2'7.01 .2021 was registered^{againstthe respondentNos'5 to 7 and others'}

¶86

ii) A notice under Section^{4l-A of the Cr.P'C'was also served on} them. He has denied^{the allegationmade by the petitionersthat despite} dialing I 00, there^{was no resPonse.}

¶87

iii) The Investigating^{Officer in the said crime has recorded} statements of several^witnesses.

¶88

iv) On 26.01.2021^{at 12.25 hours, PatrollingCar-II' in charge} D.NareshMudiraj,PCNo.58TTofRaidurgamPoliceStationreceiveda

¶89

¶90

¶91

1t,,./ tl I) . :tttJ o./ :0)t

¶92

call to Mobile No.8333993405 frorn the 2,,d petitioner,s Mobile No.9100458758 i: rforming about causing the damage to rheir workshop by their land own, rs and others and requesting to stop such acts.

¶93

v) Immedir tely, at about 12.40 hours, the parrolting Car_II staff reached the spot e nd found the Workshop structure was already damaged and demolished.

¶94

vi) The pat olling Car-ll in charge D.Naresh Mudira.r, pC No.5g77 took the photogra rhs and instructed the land owners and others available there not to do ar y further damage. He immediate infbrmed the same to the 2"d petitioner rnd subsequently, on the complaint of the 2"'r petitioner. a case in Cr.No.3 " of 2021 was registered.

¶95

vii) The in restigation reveals that there is sotne dispule between the petitioners a rd the accused and notices were also issued bv the GHN,IC

¶96

The cou rter filed by the 3d respondent is also on the same lines that ofthe 4th resl ondent.

¶97

CONTI NTION S OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶98

i) He is c urner of the property i.e. plot No.133 admeasuring 267 sq.yards in Sy.)Io.5l, Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy I ristrict, by virtue of registered sale deed, bearing document No.4i67 of 2017, dated 27.04.2017 purchased from Sri Mohmood Hussa n and four others.

¶99

ii) Since t re petitioners are rr) ing lo encroach his properry, he has filed a suit vide ().S.No.9g ol 202 I against the peritioners herein seeking

¶100

¶101

¶102

KL,J t/.P.No.2083 o/2021

¶103

perpetual injunction and obtained ad-interim-injunction in the said suit and the said suit is pending.

¶104

iii) He lodged a complaint against the 2nd petitioner and Sri P.Phani Kalyan Chakrawarthy, for criminal trespass and criminal conspiracy etc.

¶105

iv) The 2"d petirioner and Sri P.Phani Kalyan Chakrarvarthy are not his tenants any mol'e and they themselves vacated the property and removed the shed which they erected illegally without pennission from GHMC.

¶106

CONTENTIONS IN THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER FILED BY THE STIIRESP ONDENT

¶107

i) Referring to the order passed by this Court and also the Apex Court, he would submit that a casual act of possession does not have the effect of intem-rpting the possession of the rightful owner. A stray act of trespass, or a possession which has not matured into settled possession, can be obstructed or removed by the true owner even by using necessary force.

¶108

ii) He has filed writ petition vide W.P.No.193 l5 of 2020 on 02.11.2020 through the 7'h respondenr, his GPA holder, seeking a direction to GHMC authorities ro take action against the petitioners herein fbr rnaking unauthorized construction. The said Writ Petition is pending.

¶109

iii) As the petitioners tried to encroach into his property several times, he has lodged a complaint against the petitioners in Raidurgam Police Station but they did not take the complaint but the 1Oth respondent/

..\

F-*

K1.,J tl I') 20E3 ol )t)21

¶114

Head Constable r nd Constable Baig spoke to him and after verifying his title papers, they ;alled the petitioners to the Police Station to discuss and resolve the matt( r amicably, but the petitioners did not tum up, instead told the 10th resp )ndent to do whatever they can and convey the same to them.

¶115

iv) He thr n approached GHMC authorities, Serilingarnpaly. and requested to take action against the petitioners.

¶116

v) The pet tioners have no right to ask for police protection and lor appointment of Ln Advocate-Commissioner as thc).are not the owners nor having any alid lease agreement to carry out their b,usiness in plot No. I 33.

¶117

vi) The al eged lease agreement was ilegally prepared without his knowledge or c )nsent or signature. He has also not received any rent through his accc lnt at any time.

¶118

vii) With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the present writ petition.

¶119

9. CONT ONTIO NS OF THE 6TH RESPONDEN'T

¶120

i) The 5th :espondent is his brother and owner of plot No, 133.

¶121

ii) He has nothing to do with the subject properry.

¶122

iii) He is lot a necessary partv.

¶123

iv) The p :titioners are not owners of the subject pr.operty and the-vare not having valid lease agreement to carry on the business. The petitioners shor ld not interfere with the subject propeny as the same belongs to the 5^h respondent.

|--

KL,J lv. P.No.2083 of 2021

¶128

10. coNTENTIONS OF THE 7fl,R8 SPONDE

¶129

i) He is a Practicing Advocate and legal counsel to the 5s respondent and providing him legal advice representing in Court of law and have nothing to do with the present Writ petition,

¶130

ii) The 5th respondent has filed the suit vide o.S.No.9g of 2021 and obtained interim orders. The petitioners have no right to carry on the business.

¶131

lu) lhe 5"' -,h respondent also fired rejoinder reply affidavit to the reply affidavit of the petitioners, stating that the 7'r, respondent is a practicing Advocate and his legal advisor earlier and acted as a GpA holder for filing the writ petition b..uu'r. he was in overseas then and when he came back to India, the role of GpA automatically ceased as he can look after the Court matters himself.

¶132

iv) 5m respondent, being the owner of the property, can forcibly evict the petitioners bur he did not do so instead gave lot of time to vacate the property, but the petitioners intentionally to encroach the property of the 5th respondent for very long time as he was doing his business in Plot No. 134.

¶133

v) The petitioners have filed reply affidavit to rhe counrer filed by the respondent Nos.6 and 7 nanating illegal acts of the respondent Nos.5 to 7 in collusion with the respondent Nos.4 and g to l0 and also about Iodging a complaint and taking up videographs etc.

¶134

vi) In the additional affidavit filed on 01 .02.2021, the petitioners have specifically mentioned that they were dispossessed from the said )

¶135

------;-*-

¶136

¶137

KL,J tt/. P. No.2083 of202l

¶138

property illegally by the respondent Nos.5 to 7 with the help of respondent Nos.4, 8 to 10. They have filed photographs, CD and copies of the complaints r tc.

¶139

FINDINGS OF THE C OURT

¶140

The ab )ve stated facts would reveal that the petitioners are running a Service Cenre and Workshop for supply of spare par.ts of two wheelers manufa< rured by Royal Enfield. There is no dispute that they have obtained thr above said plot Nos. l3 I to l3;1 on lease lrom their respective owners and the total land adrneasuring is about l000sq.yards in Sy.No.5l of G rchibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal. 'Ihey have been rurming the aid Servicing Centre since last eight (g) years.

¶141

It is re evant to note that the 5th rcspondent has purchased the Plot No.133 adn:asuring 267 sq.yards from Mohmood Ilussain and 5 others under regstered sale deed bearing document No.4367 of 2017, dated 27.04.201'. It is not in dispute that the 6,h respondent is the younger brother of the 5th respondent. The 6,h respondent and 2nd petitioner and hi , Manager P.Phani Kalyan chak'awarthv have entered into unregisterec lease deed dated r5.05.2017 rvith regard ro the plor No. 133. The le ase is lor a period of three years commencing i.rom 15.05.2017. ln t re said lease deed, it is also specifically, rnentioned that the 2nd petitioner and another obtained the said premises on rental basis for running aut< mobile showroom and Workshop from I 5.05.20 I 7 to 14.05.2020. It il further mentioned that the lease can be extended for

¶142

¶143

KL,J w.P.No.208J of 202 t

¶144

¶145

further period of two years as mutua[y agreed between the lessees and lessors.

¶146

It is relevant to note that in the said lease deed, the 6th respondent stated that he is the owner ofthe plot No.133 under registered sale deed bearing document No.4367 of 2017.In the counter filed by the 5th respondent there is no denial of the execution of the said lease deed. It is also relevant to note that in the counter filed by the respondent Nos.5 and 7, there is no denial about execution ol said lease deed by rhe 6,h respondent. Thus, basing on the above said sale deed, the 5,h respondent claims that he is the owner of the propepy and he has entered into the said lease deed with rhe 2nd petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioners herein are in possession of the plot No. 133 and other three Plots by erecting shed and running Workshop and Servicing Centre.

¶147

It is relevant to note that the petitioner No.2 and Sri phani Kalyan Chakrawanhy have filed a suit vide O.S.No.3l5 of 2020 against the respondent Nos.5 and 6 for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the possession of the petitioner No.2 and another over the said property i.e. Plot No. 133 admeasuring Ac.367 sq.yards.

¶148

The above stated facts including obtaining lease from Mohmood Hussain and family are specifically mentioned. It is also relevant to note that in the writ petition filed by the 5'h respondent thlough the 7'r'respondent, it is specilically mentioned that at the time of purchase of the said Plots, the 6'h and 7'r' respondents, the petitioner No.2 herein and his Manager were in possession along with the adjacent plots

KL,J l4/. P.No.2083 of 2021

¶153

wherein they use I to run two wheeler Servicing Centre in the open plot of the petitioner used as parking area. After purchase of the said plot, when the 5th resp rndent asked the 2"d petitioner and another to vacate the Plot, they reque;ted one year time to vacare the said plot. The 5,h respondent havir I considered their business necessities and got arranged accommodation rnd permitted one year time. Thus. there is no dispute that the petition( rs herein were continuing as lessees ol the above said Plot No.133 be ongs to the 5th respondent before his purchase and thereafter the sa d writ petition was filed on23.10.2020 wherein the 7th respondent ment oned his occupation as business instead ofan Advocate. Whereas, now h : claims that he is an Advocate to the 5th respondent and giving legal adv: :e. t

¶154

Thus, rccording to the petitioners, the 7'h respondent is a friend of the respondt nt Nos.5 and 6 and also younger brother of the 5,h respondent. Wh, n the 5'h respondent was in abroad, in collusion with the other responder:s Nos.4, 8 to l0 dispossessed the petitroners from the said property ill^.gally by taking law into their hands.

¶155

In th: writ affidavit, they have specifically mentioned the events that tool place fr.om 26.01.2021 to 27.01.202L On 26.01 .2021 about t.l5P.M. the 5'h respondent along with 20 others anned with boulders and d aggers entered into Workshop premises by beating the watchman and rther staff, threatened the petitioners that they would be finished, if the premises is not vacated. They have created disturbance and went awa-, . The 2nd petitioner was not there in the shed at that

¶156

¶157

KL,,I W ?. No.2083 of202l

¶158

particular point of time. He lodged a complaint with the 4th respondent stating that on 26.01.202 I evening at about 6.41 P.M., the respondent Nos.6 and 7 along with the respondent No.5 and several antisocial elements came into the premises, removed the tools, implements, spare parts from the shed which was partially demolished on the previous day and threw them out. Some vehicles which were given by the customers for repairs were also moved out. They have brought JCB also on 26.01.2021 and carried out the works in the presence of the very same Police. He has filed photographs along with CD which shows that the police vehicle is behind the JCB. The damage to the Workshop is being done and the same can be noticed in the video which was taken by their Workshop Manager Mr.Ravi lrom his cell phone. Even he has taken CD of the same. The customer lounge, cabin, cash counters, Manager room and ramps were also dernolished by the culprits and the respondent Nos.6 and 7 with the active support of Police. The Police forced his men instead of protecting the life of the citizens including the depositors. They were close and supported respondent No.5. The 2nd petitioner has approached the 9th respondent/the Sub Inspector ofPolice and there is no use.

¶159

In the writ affidavit, there is specific mention that on 27 .01 .2021 moming while he was in the office of his counsel with regard to a case, he received intirnation from his Workshop Manager. When he tried to dial 100, it got disconnected. Obviously their numbers were blocked. He tried calling lrorr his phone number 85l991llll at about

¶160

¶161

¶162

KL,J ll.P.No 2083 of 2021

¶163

1.00 P.M., thereaf er, he called to DCP and informed about rhe same. The DCP advised him o dial 100 assuring that they would lift the call and on intervention of tl e DCP, his call was attended.^'l'here is no specilic rebuttal to the sa d facts by the respondents. The petitioners have also lodged a complair t both dated 26.01.2021 narrating the said illegal acts. They have also filed a suit lor perpetual injunction against the 5th respondent and r thers. At the instance of the responderrt No.5 to 7, Municipal authorj :ies have issued a notice and the petitioners herein have lrled a suit O.S.l Jo.697 of 2020 against the GHMC before the Court below and status quo was granted in the said suit which is pending. The said sralzs quo or ler is subsisting.

¶164

I 9. In the written instructions of the 4th respondent, there is specific mention .hat on 26.01 .2021 at 12.25 hours, Parrolling Car-ll, in

¶165

charge D.Naresl Mudiraj, PC No.5877 of Raidurgam police Station received a ca I to Mobile No.8333993405 ti.om the Mobile No.9100458758 ol Phani, Royal Entield Manager, in.brnring about causing darnage :o their Workshop by their landowners and others and requesting to vi it the Workshop and stop such acts. Lnmediately, at about 12.40 hours, the Parolling Car-ll staffreached the spot and found the Workshop st ed structure was already damaged and demolished. The Patrolling CarJ in charge D.Naresh Mudiraj, pC No.5877 took the photographs an, L instructed the land owners and others who were available that tl ey should not do any funher damage. There is also mention about is ;uance of the notice by GHMC.

¶166

KL,J W.P.No.2083 of202l

¶167

¶168

The above stated lacts would reveal that there were incidents on 26.01.202 I and 21 .01 .2021. There is no explanation much less plausible explanation lrom the respondent Nos.5 to 7 with regard to vacating of the said property i.e. Plot No.l33 by the petitioners herein and to hand over possession of the same to the respondent No.5.

¶169

A perusal of the photographs and CD would reveal that the Police van is present at the site. There is specific mention about the illegal acts done by the respondent Nos.4, 8 to 10 in the entire operation. Thus, the said facts would reveal that the respondent Nos.5 and 7, owner of the property younger brother/friend/GPA holder/counsel of respondent No,5 with the help of respondent Nos.4, 8 to 10 dispossessed the petitioners from the above said property i.e. Plot No.133 and removed the men and nrachinery florn the same. The photographs and C.D. clearly shows the said lacts

¶170

As contended by the learned counsel, the petitioners were dispossessed fl'orn the said workshop rvith the help ol respondent Nos.8 to 10. As stated above, the lease period was for 3 years. The said lease was expired by 14.05.2020. Even according to the respondent Nos.5 and 7, respondent No.5 has permitted the petitioners to continue for one more year. The said one year was expired by 14.05.2021. During the said period, the respondent No.5/owner of the property, instead of getting petitioners evicted from the said property by pursuing the above said suits vide O.S.No.315 of 2020, O.S.No.697 of 2020 and also O.S.No.98 of 202llispossessed the petitioners and his men from the said propefty

L1_.J lt l ,\o.-03) <t/ )E I

¶175

and removed the nachinery from the said propeny w.irh rhe help of respondent Nos.4, I to 10.

¶176

lt is als I relevant to note that the role playecl by the 7'r, respondent is suspi 'ious since at one time, he stated that he is the counsel to the 5th respondel t and giving legal advice to the 5rh respondent. But in the cause title of he above said writ petition No. 193 l5l2020, he has mentioned his occr pation as business. According to the petitioners, the 7s respondent is f iend of the 5fr respondent and out of his influence helped the 5'h resl ,ondent in resorting to the above said illegal acts. According to the p, titioners, the 7th respondent has an eye on the subject properties and the aid fact was not denied. On the complaint Iodged by the 2nd petitioner, tl e 4'r' respondent registered 'a case in cr.No.3a or 202.r against the respond:nt Nos.5 to 7 and others for the atbresaid of'fences.

¶177

In view ,,1the above discussion, this Courr is of the view. that the respondent No;.4. g to I0/police instead ol. preventinu respondent Nos.5 to 7 in resor.ing to the above said illegal acts. supported them in getting the petition -'rs evicted from the said property and removing the men and machinery which they are not expected to do.

¶178

CON C LUS] ON

¶179

In the rer ult, this Writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent-Commi sioner of police, Cyberabad to conduct enquiry into the entire episode and take action against the culprits including the respondent Nos.5 t, , l0 in accordance with law. He shall also personally

KL,J

(

tY,P.No.2083 of 202 t

¶185

supervise the investigation in Cr.No.34 of 2021 of Raidurgam Police Station.

¶186

As a sequel, t.e r.niscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in rhe writ petition shall stancl closed.

¶187

SD/. MOHO.SANAUL LAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY/ I qb To, SECTION OFFICER ' I?3",1'j;o?ffitary'^{Home Department, state of reransana,secretariat,} 2. The Commissionei of police, Cyberabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad-500032 3. The Dy.Commissioner ;i^{-,p;;;""M;;;L} fi;#]B:ftTij.r;Aesioe.rtr^{,r,,ic't'ionel,liiLliilrloe1"E?jELcil3:l:%:.n,!B[:i} o l?3":.t3:SluHouse^{officer,PS Raidurgam Madhuranasar corony,} Raidurgam u I. 9n"^{CC to Sri J. prabhakar,} Advocate tOpdcr to GP for Ho;", iiibli-c:iu",t%'r inE'strt" of rerangana at Hyderabad. ,,J,jr?a. I. ?,lE 3B Bjr;:Ir,,"pareddy^{sureshBabu Advocate(opuc).} 9. One Spare Coov. N/lP.#-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2411212121

ORDER

WP.No.2O83^{o1 2021}

I
il''
,(
t'
):,
_l 2 i) ,lt'I2022
.:
.{
ti^, ' .:.J

¶195

DISPOSING^{()F THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT C(^ISTS

¶196

#,a4
I
l7

M/s Go Green Motors India Pvt. Ltd. and another v. State of Telangana and 9 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Go Green Motors India Pvt. Ltd. and another v. State of Telangana and 9 others

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

I Shiva Kumar and 4 Others Vs The State of Telangana and Another

J. Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Tungala Laxmi Raghava Vs State of Telangana

Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs The State of Telangana

Alladi Laxmaiah Vs State of Telangana

Md Omer Vs The State of Telangana