Dismissed

Sri. Tekumatla Lingaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Feb 2022WP/4145/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge rejected a writ petition seeking police aid and protection for agricultural land. The Court noted that the police had already noticed the dispute as civil in nature and disposed of the underlying complaint. Consequently, the Writ Petition was disposed of as the cause did not survive.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of as cause does not survive; petitioner free to work out other remedies.

Sri. Tekumatla Lingaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HYOERABAD}

¶2

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY .THE TENTH^{DAYOF FEBRUARY}

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER}

¶7

WRIT PETITION^{NO:4145 OF2021}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri. Tekumatla^{Lingaiah,S/o.Laxmaiah.} Ag9^{OS years,Occ AgricultureFyo'} Dandepally Mandal ind^{Village,l'4ancherialDistrict}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

I The State of Telangana,^{Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department'} Seiretariat^{Buildin{s. Secretariat,Hyderabad}

¶13

2 The Deputy Commissioner^{of Police, N/ancherial,Mancherial District}

¶14

¶15

Circle lnspector^{of police(Cl), Luxettipel ,MancherialDist}

¶16

4 The Station^{House Officer, Dandepally P S., Mancherial District}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

PetitionunderArticle226oftheconstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewlth, the High court maybe pleased} to issue a appropriate^{writ, order or orders, more particularlyone in the nature of} writ of mandamus^{declaringthe inactionof the respondent Nos 2 to 4 in not} iegi"t"rlng FlR,^{police aid to property on the compla.int of the petitionerdated 19-} os-iozo ijittegal,^{arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-} A pi"t"li-tr," oi th".onttitution iand of the^{of lndia petitioner and consequently direct in survey No. 108 the to a respondent total extent No ol 2 Ac to 2-22} -4-to 6r"lr.^{.itr"iuJ at ChinihapalliShiwar,Dandepally Mandal, Mancherial Districl} while considering the^{complaint dated19-09-2020.}

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶20

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in thecircumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed^{in suppo(of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedlo issuea} Ji*.tion to the^{RespondentNo.2 to 4 to give police aid to the existingcropin} Survey No. 108 to^{an extent of Ac 2-22 guntassituated €t ChinthapalliShiwar'} OanO6prffy Mandal,^{Mancherial Districtbf registering.FlRwhile consideringthe} ;;pi;;.; dated 19-09-2020^{pendins disposal of the writ Petition'}

¶21

Counsel for^{the Petitioner :SRl'POCHAIAHDORISHETTI}

¶22

Counsel^{for the RespondentsNo'1to 4: GP FOR HOME (TG)}

¶23

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶24

THE^{HC N'BLEDr' IUSTICE SHAMEEMAKTHER'}

ORDER:

This Wri^{Petition'under Article 226 of the Constitutionof} India,^{is filedseekingwrit of mandamus declaringthe action of} the responde^{lt Nos.2 to 4 in not registering the F.I.R in granting} police aid^{t( the propertyof the petitioner'pursuantto the} petitioner's^{( omplaint'dated 19'09'2020'as arbitrary'llleqal and} consequentl^{/, direct the respondentNos'2 tO 4 tO protectthe} land^{of th( petitioner admeasuring Ac'2'22guntas in Survey} No.108,^{si :uated at ChinthapalliShiwar' DandepallyMandal'} Mancheriar^{District, by consideringthe complaint'dated} 19.09"202l,^{of the Petitioner'}

¶29

the^.Petitioner, learned

¶30

counsel^for

¶31

1. He; rd^{the learned} Pleaoer^rur Home,^aPPearingfor

¶32

Assistant^Government respond,^{nt Nos l to 4 and perused the record'}

¶33

Ir^{the courseofsubmissions'learnedAssistant} GovernnentPleaderfoi-HomebroughttothenoticeofthisCourt that th:^{respondent- police have acted upon the complaint' dated} 19.09.2020^{andfound that the subject dispute relates to "civilin} natu16 "^{and the same was intimatedto the petitioner by issuing} notic€ , dated^{2l .02'2021'}

¶34

The^{said submissionof learned AssistantGovernment} Pleac er for^{Home is taken on record}

I'/

Under circumstances, since the complaint of the petitioner is disposed of as indicated above, the cause in the Writ petition does not survive for adjudication.

¶40

With the above observation, the Writ petition is disposed of. However, the petitioner is at liberty to work out the remedies available u nder law.

¶41

Miscellaneous^petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition

¶42

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

¶43

SD/-K,AM^MAJI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR 60 //TRUE COPY' SECTION^OFFICER

¶44

To,

¶45

One CC to SRl.^{POCHAIAH DORISHETTI Advocate[OPUC]}

¶46

2.TwoCCstoGPFoRHoME(TG),HighcourtforthestateofTetangana.[oUT]

¶47

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶48

One Spare^CoPY I,4IVA .k\ BS

HIGH^COURT

DATEET:10/02120²²

ORDER

WP.No.4145^{( f 2021}

¶54

a<br>cl't {..
F rl-i.?
o .
q$

¶55

DISMISSI{G^{THE WRIT PETITION} AS INFRI^ICTIONS \MITHOU" COSTS

¶56

Sri. Tekumatla Lingaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Tekumatla Lingaiah 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

T. Prakasa Rao, Vs The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank

Kandimalla Raghuma Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Uppari Sattaiah Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others

Sri. Bolishetty Chinna Rajaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Managing Committee Vs The State of Telangana and another

Jarpula Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana