Dismissed

T. Ramadasappa Naidu v. The State of Telangana and 5 others

Telangana HC24 Dec 2021WP/29886/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking a directive to the police to change the charge section in a criminal case involving alleged trespass was dismissed. The Court held that serious disputed questions regarding possession and entry into the property are for the civil court, and the police cannot be directed by a writ to include specific IPC sections at the investigation stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed without costs; no direction was issued to the police to alter the charge section.

T. Ramadasappa Naidu Vs The State of Telangana and 5… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{B. VIJAYSEN REDDY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 29886 OF² 0²¹

¶7

Between:

¶8

T. Ramadasappa Naidu, S/o' T.^{LakshmanaNaidu,} -A,/-a. .5-7 -years,.^Occ' .louinitist, nyolFiat No- 1b, MIG-Il,^{Phase-ll, H.No.1-B-1/B20/F10, Second floor'} APHB, BaghlingamPallY, HYderabad'

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana,^{rep. by its secretary,HomeDepartment, secretariat,} Hyderabad^- 500 063.

¶12

The Commissioner of^{Police' Hyderabad, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad'}

¶13

The Station House^{Officer, ChikkadpallyPS,Hyderabad -20'}

¶14

4.SriP.ShivaShankarRao'lnspectorofPolice,PSChikkadpally,Hyderabad.20.

¶15

5, Sri Chennu Srinivas^{Reddy, Sub-lnspectorofPolice, ChikkadpallyPS'} Hyderabad^{- 20.}

¶16

6'SriK.Narasimha,S/o.NotknowntothePetitio-ner,A/q.50years,occ.Sakshi - nuport"i, -Aightingampally, R/o Near Ambed(ar Law College, Baghlingampally' Hyderabad. Cell No^9705347210-

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to issue an appropriate^{writ orderor direction more particularlyone in the nature of} writ of Mandamus to direct^{the RespondentNo. 3 to provide Police Assistance to} evict the Tress Passer^{i.e. RespondentNo. 6 as per the authority of law laiddownin} Poona Ram vs Moti^{Ram(D) Th. Lrs. Reported in 2019 SCC Onlinesc 91 decided} on 29.01.2019 held^{that A casualact of possession does not have the effect of} interrupting the^{possessionof the rightful owner A stray act of trespass, or a} possession which has not matured^{into settledpossession,can be obstructed or} removed by the true owner^{even by usingnecessaryforce} "^{,' and high handed} acts of the official^{respondentsin collusionwith Respondent No. 6 to grab the} Petitioners property is illegal,^{arbitraryand malafide and prevent the process of} abuse of law, the same is^{violationof fundamental rights guaranteedunder} Constitution of lndia^{vide Article14, 16,21and 300A and consequentlydirect the} RespondentNo.3toalterthesectionoflawfrom44Sto456lPCinCr.No' 44212021 on the file^{of PS Chikkadpally.}

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High Court may be pleased to direct} the Respondent No.3 to^{provide police assistance to evict the respondentno.6 and} his men from Petitioners house^{Flat No. 10, MIG-ll, Phase-ll,H.No.1- B-1/820/F10,} Second floor, APHB,^{Baghlingampally, Hyderabad'}

¶21

COUNSEI fOr thE^{PEtitiONET : SRI. M.VENU MADHAV FOR SRI.ANDE RAVI KUMAR} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos. 1 to 3 : GP FOR HOME}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.4 to 6 : SRl. SYED LATEEF} The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶24

1VRIT PETITION No.29886 OF 2O2L

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard Sri M. Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Syed Lateef, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6.

¶27

This writ petition is filed to direct the Station House Officer, Chikkadpally Police Station, Hyderabad - respondent No.3, to provide police assistance to evict respondent No.6, who is alleged to have trespassed into property of the petitioner bearing Flat No. 10, MIG-ll, Phase-ll, H.No.1-8-1/p20 lFiro, Second Floor, APHB, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad. Petitroner stated that he is the founder Chairman and present Chairman to Mudra Agriculture Skill Development Multi State Cooperative Society Limited, Nallakunta, Hyderabad. Respondent No.6 is the Vice Chairman ol the said society and he is working as Reporter to Sakshi Telugu Daily Newspaper. Respondent No.6 has acquaintance with Chikkadpally Police and also with higher police authorities. The society could not do business due to pandemic. The employees of the society gave compiaints in Nallakunta Police Station as salaries were not paid to them and the said case is being investigated by the police of Nallakunta. Petitioner apprehends that there is threat to his life. Respondent No.6 invested Rs.6,00,000/- in the said society and he being the Vice Chairman of the sociery, misused the money of the society to a tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. Petitioner further stated that when he questioned

¶28

¶29

the illegal activities of respondent No.6, he developed grudge against him.

¶30

While so, taking advantage of the absence of the petitioner and his family in the subject flat, which was purchased by the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 31.10.2019, on 09.lL2O2l, respondent No.6 along with ten to twelve associates broke open the lock of the flat and trespassed inro the said flat and started staying therein. Petitioner further stated that several valuabies are kept in the flat including cash of Rs.5,0O,0OO/_. A complaint was lodged on 10.1 1.2021, which was registered as Crime No.442 of 2O2I under Sections 422, 44g artd 506 ipc. Petitioner requested the police to immediately evict respondent No.6 and hand over the peaceful possession of the subject flat to him. However, the police being hand in llove with respondent No.6 intentionally registered crime for bailable offences. It is alleged that the police authorities are facilitating the trespasser to stay in the flat. As a matter of fact, the alleged acts of respondent No.6 of house breaking attracts offence punishable under Section 456 IpC, which is a non-bailable, but the police registered crime under Section 44a WC which is a bailable offence u,ith imprisonment for one year or fine. Thus, the action of the police in not including Section 456 IPC while registering crime against respondent No.6 and registering crime under Sectio n 44g IpC is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, the petitioner prayed to issue direction to the respondent No.3 to alter the Section of law from 44g to 456 IpC.

¶31

¶32

I I

¶33

Petitioner is relying on the^{judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme} Court in Poona Ram vs. Moti^{Ram(D) Th. Lrs.1, whereunderthe}

¶34

following observations are made:

¶35

"The law in India,^{as it hasdeveloped,accordswith} jurisprudential thought as propounded by luminaries ,like -Salmond, Salmond on Jurisprudence (12 Edn. at paras 5960) states:^'These two concepts^{ofownership andpossession,} therefore, may be used^{to distinguish betweenthe de tacto} possessor oI an object and its de^{jure owner, between.theman} who actually has it ard the^{man who ought to have itTheyserve} also to coniract the^{positionof one whoserights are ultimate,} permanent and residual with that^{of one whoserightsare only of} a tempora-ry nature.'

¶36

Learned counsel ior^{the petitioner therefore contended that} police are duty bound to evict^{the iilegal trespasser.In the present} case, the police have not^{discharged their dutiesand grossly} violated the 1aw laid^{downby the Hon"bleSupreme Courtin Poona} Ram's case⁽¹ suPra).

¶37

Petitioner further^{relied on the decisionof the DelhiHigh} Court in Anju Devi^{vs. Commissioner of Police and others2'} However, the^{principle laid dorvn in this decision is not applicable} to the facts of this case.^{The disputein Anju Devi'scase(2 supra)} is a matrimoniai dispute^{betweenthe u'ife and the husbandand} the allegation therein^{was that the wife was unauthorisedly evicted} from the^{possessionof the subject property and the directionswere} issued to^put the^{petitioner back in possession of the property in} question within a week. But,^{the dispute in the presentcase is} between two strangers.

¶38

In the counter iiled^{by respondentNo'6, it is specilically} assertedthatheenteredintoagreementofsaleandpursuant thereto, he was^{inducted into the possessionof subject flat'}

¶39

'^{2019 SCCOnline sc 9l}

¶40

'^{1994 IIIADDelhi 5i}

¶41

¶42

Hence, there are serious disputed questions of fact and this Court cannot adjudicate such disputes. The remedy, if any, for the petitioner lies before the civil Court. Further, it is for the police to conduct investigation in Crime No.442 of 2021 . At this point of time, it is premature to say as to which of the offence/ s under I.P.C. would attract on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner and whether Section 456 I.P.C. is the appropriate provision. The police cannot be directed to include offence uncler Section 456 IPC by this Court. Even otherwise, if Section 456 IpC is not included as one of the offences in closure report/charge sheet, the petitioner has got alternative remedy either by liling protest petition or filing a private complaint under Section 2OO Cr.P.C. Further, in case, charge sheet is filed without including offence under Section 456 IPC, the petifioner may file appropriate application before the Court below seeking alteration of Section of Iaw. But, writ is not the proper remedy. Hence, there are no merits in the wrir petition.

¶43