Dismissed

Jangili Sattaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Sept 2022WA/542/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed against an order that granted liberty to the petitioner to apply to the Superintendent of Police for police protection. The bench expressed grave doubts about using police protection to assert rival land rights and found no reason to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dated 08.08.2022 in W.P. No. 12425 of 2021 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Jangili Sattaiah Vs The State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32e5 ]

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

IVONDAY. IHE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO: 542 OF 2022

¶9

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 0810812022 in W P. No 12425 o'f 2021 on the file of the High Court.

¶10

Botween:

¶11

Jangili Sattaiah, S/o Late Narsaiah, Aged about 95 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H No.1-1-38811113, A.V.Enclave, Suryapet District, Telangana.

¶12

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

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

¶15

2 The Joint Collector, Suryapet District. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Suryapet District.

¶16

4 The Tahsildar cum Joint Sub Regiskar, Nagaram Mandal, Suryapet District

¶17

The Station House Officer, Nagaram Police Station and Mandal Suryapet District

¶18

Jangili Kishan Rao, S/o Late Mallaiah, Aged about 66 years, Occ: Retd Employee, R/o H.No. 1-1-42216, Nehru Nagar, Suryapet District.

¶19

Jangili Srinivas Rao, S/o Late Mallaiah, Aged about 63 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No. 7-342212, Vijayapuri Colony, Near Sai Baba Temple, Vira Road, Khammam District, Telangana.

¶20

Kalletlapally Shobhan Babu, R/o Phanigir Village, Nagaram Mandal, Suryapet Distnct.

¶21

Kalletlapally Uppaiah, R/o Phanigir Village, Nagaram Mandal, Suryapet District.

¶22

'i0. Kalletlapally Ranrulu, R/o Phanigir Village, Nagaram Mandal, Suryapet District.

¶23

... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶25

Petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.5 to provide Police protection to the Land of the Petitioner and his family members to conduct of Agricultural operations in Sy.No.628 to an extent of Land Ac 7 05 guntas situated at Phanigiri Village, Nagaram Mandal, Suryapet District, T.S as per admission of the respondent No.5 herein in his counter in page No.12, para No.9, Line No,5 in W.P. No.1242512021 , Dated.25.05.202'1 .

¶26

Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. J.RAGHURAM

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 5: Mr. T.SRIKANTH REDDY, GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Mr. PARSA ANANTH NAGESWARA RAO, GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

Gounsel for the Respondent No.6 & 7: Mr. K.V.SUDHAKAR

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 to 10: NONE APPEARED

¶30

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

I ! I 1

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶35

AND

¶36

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶37

WRIT APPEAL No.542 of 2022

¶38

JUDGMENT: /i r, ri,, /rd,, irr.ri,(.(.:hief Justice Ulal Bhugan)

¶39

Heard Mr. J . Raghuram, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. T. Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No. 1 and 5; iflr. Parsa Ananth Nagesu,ara Rao, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents No.2 to 4; and Mr. K.V.Sudhakar, learned counsel for respondents No.6 and 7.

¶40

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated OB.OB.2022 passed by the learned^.Single Judge disposing of W.P.No.72425 of 2O2l filed by the appellant himself as the writ petitioner.

¶41

Order dated OB.OB.2O22 reads as under:

¶42

"This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent No.5 in not providing police protection to the petitioner and his farnily members upon the petitioner's representation sent through Whatsapp

¶43

I i

¶44

message to the mobile of respondcnt No.5 bearing No.8332902954 from the pelitioner's mobile No.9390585179 on 24-04-2021 at about 7.11 AM according to the orders of this Court dated 21-O5-2O2O in W.P.No.3899 of 2O2O, as illcgal and arbitrary, and to direcr rcspondent No.5 to provide police protection to the petitioner and his family members to conduct the agricultural operations in Sy.No.628 to an extent of Ac.7-05 gts, situated at Phanigiri Village, Nagaram Mandal, Suryapet District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶45

In the light ol the orders passed by this Court today in W.P.No. 12428 of 2021, wherein this Court has given liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate application to the Superintendant of Police to provide police protection in the light of G.O.Rt.No.655 dated 3O-03-1997, no furthcr orders are recluired to be passed in the present \e'rit petition."

¶46

From a perusa-l of the above, it is seen that appellant had filed another writ petition, being W.P.No.12428 of 202 i, wherein this Court granted liberty to the appellant to make appropriate application before the Superintendent of Police to provide police protection. Therefore, learned Single Judge held that no further orders urere called for.

¶47

\ t

¶48

We fail to understand as to hou' appellant can claim to be a person aggrier,cd b1.'the aloresaid order passed by the learned Single Judge . As it is, we have grave doubts about seeking police protection for asserting land rights of rival parties. This r.r'e harre indicated in our order dated 30.O8.2O22 passed in W.A.No.562 of 2022, incidentally liled by the son of the present appellant.

¶49

We do not find an-y good reason to entertain the writ appeal.

¶50

7 . Writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶51

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shail stald closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

D."8f"tffsiHiA //TRUE COPY// 1 ,'_ sEcTtoto-FFtCER

¶53

To,

¶54

9n" 99^{to Mr. J.RAGHURAM, Advocate} tOpUCl One CC to Mr. K V.SUDHAKAR, novoiitblOFu'cr Two CCs to Gp FOR HOrvlE, High C"r,ii;iiri" Stlte of Tetangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶55

1 Z J

¶56

4 Two CCs to Gp FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUTI 5 Triro CD Coiries^'

5 BSR GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1910912022

sE STAI
c'/.
i
(
):.
C
o ? 4 Jlil ?sn

¶62

JUDGMENT

¶63

WA.No.542 of 2022

¶64

DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL

¶65

WITHOUT COSTS

¶66

@
CA s<br>

Jangili Sattaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jangili Sattaiah 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G. Ramulu, Mahaboobnagar Dist. Vs the Dist.Collector,Mahaboobnagar, and 4 Otrs.

Akula Veeraiah,Nizamabad Dist Vs Commissioner of C.S,Hyd,and 4 Otrs

Mgr., M/S. Bpcl and Ano. Vs J.Ramulu, Hyd.

M/s.Sneha Graphics (India) Private Limited Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and another

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Hyd Vs M/S. Vst Industries Ltd. Hyderabad and Ano

Mahindra Logistic Limited Vs State Tax Officer-1 and 3 Others