Dismissed

T. Ramadasappa Naidu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Feb 2022WA/57/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant challenged an order dismissing a writ petition seeking police assistance to evict an alleged encroacher in a property dispute. The High Court held that as the dispute involved disputed questions of title and facts between strangers, it was a civil matter and the writ petition was rightly dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed with liberty to the appellant to approach the civil court.

T. Ramadasappa Naidu Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY^{OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF^{JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶5

WRIT A PEAL NO: 57 OF 2022

¶6

writ Appeal under clause^{15 of the Letters Patent Appeal Preferred Agalnstthe} order dated 24112t2021^{Passed in W.P.No29886of 2021 on the file of the High Court}

¶7

Between:

¶8

T. Ramadasappa^{Naidu, S/o. T. LakshmanaNaidu, A'/a' 57^years'.Occ} ..tournitiJt, nlo. Ftat No.^{1b, MIG-Il,Phase-ll, H.No.1-8-1/B20lF10. Secondfloor,} APHB, BaghlingamPallY,^HYderabad.

¶9

..,APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana,^{rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department'} Secretariat, HYderabad^{- 500 063}

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

Sri P. Shiva Shankar^{Rao, lnspector of Police, PS Chikkadpally, Hyderabad - 20.}

¶15

Sri Chennu Srinivas^{Reddy, Sub-lnspector of Police,ChikkadpallyPS'} Hyderabad - 20.

¶16

6.SriK.Narasimha,S/o.NotknowntothePetitioner,Ala.S0ye]ars,OccSakshi

¶17

n"port"r, aigrrtingampatty, R/o. Near Ambedkar Law College, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant:SRl.^{MAMIDI VENU MADHAV}

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR HOME}

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.4 to 6: NONEAPPEARED}

¶22

The Court delivered the^following:

I I

THE HoN'BLE THE

JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA AND

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶28

WRIT APPEAL No.57 of 2O22

¶29

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Cttandra Sharnlo)

¶30

The present writ appeal is arising out of an order dated 24.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.29885 of 2021 .

¶31

The facts of the case reveal that the appellant/writ petitioner carne up before this Court projecting himself to be the owner of Flat No.10, MIG-II, phase-Il, H.No.1-gI /B2O /FLO, second floor, APHB, Baghlingampally, Hyderabad. It was stated by him that he is the founder Chairman and present Chairman of Mundra Agriculture Skiil Development Multi State Cooperative Society Limited, Nallakunta, Hyderabad, and the respondent No.6 is the Vice Chairman of the said Society. The appellant/writ petitioner has stated before the learned Single Judge that he has purchased the subject flat on 31.10.2019 and on 09.ll.2O2l, the respondent No.6 along with few other persons have entered into the subject flat and started living there. Meaning thereby, the appellant/writ petitioner was claiming tifle of the flat and it was alleged that the respondent No.6, who has \ trespassed, is living in his flat. A criminal case was "l.o registered in the matter vide Crime No.442 of 2021 under Sections 427, 448 and 506 IpC and the appellant/writ

¶32

petitioner carne up before this Court by filing a writ petition. The appellant/writ petitioner made a prayer to provide police assistance to evict the respondent No.6, who is allegedly an encroacher. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition keeping into account the stand of the respondent No.6, who has stated before the learned Single Judge that he has entered into an agreement of sale and pursuant thereto, he was inducted into possession of the subject flat.

¶33

Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge are reproduced as under:-

¶34

"4. Petitioner is relying on the^judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Poona Ram vs. Motl Ram^(Df Th. Lts. (2019 SCC Online SC 91), whereunder the following observations are made:

¶35

'The law rn lndra, as it has developed, accords with jurisprudential thought as propounded by luminaries like Salmond. Salmond on Jurisprudence⁽¹² Ddn. at^paras 5960) states: "These two concepts of ownetship and possession, therefore, may be used to distinguish between the de facto possessor of an object and its de^jure owner, between the man who actually has it and the ma,l who ought to have it. Thel, serve also to contract the position of one whose rights are ultimate, permanent and residual with that of one $,hosc rights are only of a temporary nature."

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore contended that police are duty bound to evict the illegal trespasser. In the present case, the police have not discharged their duties and grossly violated the 1aw laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pooaa flam's^case (1 supra).

¶37

Petitioner further relied on the decision of the De1hi High Court in AnJu Devi vs. Commlssloner of Police and '^{others(1994 IIIAD Delhi 53). However,the principlelaid} down in this decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. The dispute in Anju Devi's case (2 supra) is a matrimonial dispute between the wife and the husband and

¶38

¶39

¶40

the allegation therein was that^{the wife was unauthorisedly} evicted from the possession of the^{subject property and the} directions were issued to put the^{petitioner backin} possession of the property in question within a^week.But, the dispute in the present^{case is} between^{two strangers.}

¶41

ln the counter frled by respondent No.6, it is speciflca.lly asserted that he entered into^{agreement of sale} and pursuant thereto, he was inducted into^{the possession} of subject flat. Hence, there are serious disputed^questions of fact and this Court cannot adjudicate such^{disputes. The} remedy, if any, for the^peLitioner lies before^{the civilCourt.} Further, it is for the police to conduct investigationⁱⁿ Crime No.442 ol 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 under 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 fi1ing protest^petition or filing a private complarnt under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Further, in case, charge sheet is filed without including offence^under Section 456 IPC, the^petitioner may file appropriate application before the Court below seeking alteration of Section of law. But, writ is not the proper remedy. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition."

¶42

In the considered opinion of this Court, S disputed questions of fact were involved and the issue of title was in question, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the remedy lies before the civil Court and not before the writ Court and the disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in a writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition has rightly been disrnissed.

¶43

In respect of the other aspect that the police has not registered offences under some other Sections, the learned Single Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion that the appellant/writ petitioner does have a remedy under the Code of Crimina.l Procedure (Cr.P.C).

¶44

This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶45

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed with a liberty to the appellant/writ petitioner to approach the civii Court and to take shelter of the provisions of Cr.p.C

¶46

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶47

stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶48

SD/.CH.VENKATESWARU^LU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

,./

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . One CC to Sri. Mamidi^{VenuMadhav,Advocate} [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP^{for Home, High Courtfor the State of Telangana[OUT]} 3. Two CD Copies.Two CD Copies.CD Copies.

¶54

Two CD Copies.Two CD Copies.CD Copies. PM \ V SW

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810212022

JUDGMENT

WA.No,S7 ot 2022

tr".a}"-.<br>(-t-
c
23 Ft;2f;?2
t
-*:

¶60

Dismissing the^WA Without costs.

¶61

T. Ramadasappa Naidu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Ramadasappa Naidu 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Venkateswara Plot Owners Association, a Society under Vs Govt. of a.P., rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue

Bhagchand Surana, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd., and Another

Smt. Maniza Jumabhoy, Vs Karim Nawaz Alladin

Emmadi Ramakrishna Vs The State of Telangana

M. Krishna Vs The Registrar (Administration)

B. Vasantha Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others