Dismissed

K. Lava Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Feb 2022WP/5814/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by an individual challenging police interference with his land possession. No further orders were required based on the Government Pleader's submission regarding ongoing criminal investigation against certain respondents. The petition was closed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

K. Lava Kumar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶6

WRIT PETITION N O: 5814 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.L ava Kumar, S/o Somaiah aged 42 years Occ. Agriculture R/o Vastakondur village Gundala Mandal. Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district

¶9

...PETITIONER/S

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district

¶14

The Sub lnspector of Police, Gundala Police Station Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district 5. Sri Sandeep Kumar, Sub lnspector of Potice Gundala Police Station Y;dadri Bhuvanagiri district

¶15

Lingala Shivakumar, S/o Pochaiah aged 44 years Fl/o D.No. 6-7-58, Neelgiri Home Keesara ltlandal, Rampally village, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

lVlallaboina Somaiah, S/o Narsaiah aged 44 years Peddapadishala, Gundala Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district

¶17

B. The Superintendent of Police, Jangoan district

¶18

...RES'.NDENT/'

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of It4andamus declaring the action of the respondents-4 and 5 in interfereing with possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac. 1.30gts in Sy.No. 179 situated at Vastakondur village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable, contrary to Law and u n co nstitutiona I and consequently direct the respondents- 4 and 5 not interfere with possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac. 1,30gts in Sy.No. 179 situated at Vastakondur village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri d istrict

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition under Section 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 respondents- 4 and 5 not interfere with possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac. 1.30gts in Sy.No. 179 situated at Vastakondur village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI D.RAMAKRISHNA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 & 8 : AGP FOR HOME

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 : NONE APPEARED

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

THE HON'BLE^{DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER} w P IO No. t4 20

¶27

ORDER

¶28

This Writ Petition,^{under Article226 of the Constitutionof} India, is filed by the^{petitioner, wherein the following prayer is} made:

¶29

".,.to^{issue writorder, order or direction more particularly one in} the nature of^{writ of Mandamusdeclaring the actionof the} respondent Nos.4^{and 5 in interfering with possessionand} enjoyment of the^{land admeasuringAc.1.30 gts in Sy No 179} situated at Vastakondur^{village, Yadadri BhuvanagiriDistrict as} illegal, arbitrary, unjust,^{unreasonable,contrary to Law and} unconstitutional and^{consequently direct the respondents 4 and} 5 not to interfere with^{possessionand enjoymentof theland} admeasuring Ac.1.3O^{gts in Sy No.179situated at Vastakondur} Village, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri^{District and to passsuch other} ord er or ord ers....^"

¶30

Heard both sides.^{Perused the record'}

¶31

The allegation is that^{the respondentNos'4 and 5 are} highhandedly causing^{interferenceover the subjectproperty} belongs to the^{petitioner, without therebeing a right to do so'}

¶32

Learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for Home would} submit that^pursuant to^{the complaint lodgedwith the police,a} case in crime No.4 of^{2022 was registered against respondent} Nos.6 and 7 for the^{offences underSections427 and 447 rlw 34 of} IPCandthepoliceconcernedareinvestigatingthesaidcrimeand they are not causing^{any interferenceas alleged'}

¶33

The submissions made by the^{learnedAssistant Government} Pleader for Home are^{taken on record.}

¶34

¶35

6 In view oF the submission made by the Iearned Assistant Government pleader for Home, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition.

¶36

¶37

With lhe above observation, the Writ petition is disposed of.

¶38

Ivliscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition

¶39

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

¶40

SD/-M.MANJULA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'

¶41

SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To l The Principal secretary Home Department, State of rerangana, secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶43

2 The Director General of Police, state of relanqana, Lakdikaoool. Hvderabad.

¶44

The Superintendent of Police, Yadadri Bhuvariaqiri district

¶45

The sub lnspector of Policr, Gundala police sta-tion yadiori Bhuvanagiri district

¶46

The S-uperintendent of Police, Jangoan district

¶47

One CC to Sri D.Ramakrishna, Advocate tOpUCl

¶48

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for ihe Staie of Telangana at Hyderabad lourl

¶49

B. Two CD Copies

¶50

One Spare Copy Kj. NPJ

HIGH^COURT

DATED:0310212022

STATI:- o
...l
q ,
I =o
,tl it-
l)
t.,
+

¶55

ORDER

¶56

WP.No.5814^{of 2022}

¶57

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS.

¶58

\ Dl
./.. )2-
\t

K. Lava Kumar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Lava Kumar 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

Mohammed Sultan and Another Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Korra Ashok Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Gujjala Lakshmi Vs The Union of India and 4 Others

Boya Shankaramma alias Gudise Anjanamma Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. KeluthBasunda Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Fatima Begum Vs The State of Telangana