Disposed

Gonur Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC9 Feb 2022WP/5980/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed a writ petition filed to prevent police from interfering in a civil land dispute. The petitioners alleged UPPS and Station House Officer instructed by an unofficial respondent to summon them for compulsory compromise. Court directed police to refrain from interference based on respondent's denial of summons.

What did the court decide?

Directed the police not to cause interference in the civil dispute and not to call the petitioners to the police station for compromise of civil disputes relating to the property.

Gonur Ramesh Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 5980 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gonur Ramesh, S/o Balakistaiah, Aged about^{59 years,Occ.Business'R/o} H.No. 1 4-91, Hanumantekidi, Wanaparthy,

¶10

Vundekoti l,'lanyam, S/o Buchanna, Aged^{about 58 years, Occ.Business,Fyo} H.No.8-61. Raigadda. Wanaparthy.

¶11

Guyjula Balaswhay, S/o^{Balaiah',Aged about 58 years, Occ. Business,R/o} H.No.44-1 80, Ramanagara Colony,^Wanaparthy.

¶12

Ginkala Venkatswamyi S/o Balram,^{Aged about 54 years, Occ. Business, Fyo} H.No.42-250/6, Sa inagar Colony,^Wanaparthy

¶13

Thokala Gopal, S/o Gokaraiah,^{Aged about51 years,Occ. Business,Fyo}

¶14

H.No.9-42, Raigadda Street,^Wanaparthy.

¶15

6 Dasari Pentaiai, S/o^{Chinnaiah,AgerJ about 67 years' Occ.Business,R-/o} H.No.10-53/4, Raigadda Street,^Wanaparthy.

¶16

z Cneerii NagJtu, s"/o^{ChinnaYellanna, Ageri about 54 years, Occ. Business,Ryo} H.No.42-86/2. Satnagar Colony,^Wanaparthy

¶17

a Aorouli Venl^atswariy.^{S/o Sivaraiah,Aged about 57 years,Occ Business,R/o}

¶18

H.No.10-57, Raigadda Street, Wanaparthy.

¶19

...PET|TIONERS

¶20

AND

¶21

The State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Home'}

¶22

Secretariat Buildin{s,^{Hyderabad, Telangana- state} .,

¶23

z. inJ Suoerintenderit^{ot Police,Wanaparthy, WanaparthyDistrict'}

¶24

: ih; D;;;il SrJeiintenoent ot^{policd, Wairaparthv, WanaparthvDistrict}

¶25

+. rne stdtion HoLse Officer,^{police station. wanaparthy,_wanaparthyurstnct.} .

¶26

s. uilt Viiiyi r.r.rjJiirot^{o*ner Assoiiation,Having its officeat 42-271t3ot62'} Nandi Hills,^{wanapartny,i"etin?g-a';SUte Repl by its President K Venkatesh} S/o Ramulu, ...RES,ONDENTS

¶27

...RES,ONDENTS

¶28

Petition under^{Article 226 of the Constitution of .lndia praying that in the} circumslances^{stated in tne aria"aii iii"i tn"'"itn' the High court mavbe pleased} pa'rtictrlarlv^{one in the nature} to issue an^{appropriate W''t o'"#'t;;jtu"iion'} 'o'" of Writ of^{tr,4andamuso"tr"''nJ'i# )'"til" J tnJ i'o and4'n-retoondent is interfering} ii",", ",, o i,r,G^{i no .",, n,i"' lffi} [U.,1,S:,:il"lf, :"i.liil,l:l' I,l:^ffJ3B the oetitioners^{to compromrse-rl tr".;;;;;ii;;} respondent^{Nos. 3 and 4 harassth-e} resoondent^{on behalfot tnu tunl",l"ui"'rii""} } Articte-'14^and 2t ifh:"i,?tttll:"4?l oetitioners^{as illegal, ,to,t'"tr,;ii;} ini. n-o" or" goyl -,1^,,,,on"rs for compromrse india. and^{consequenllv_} l]iJ"'3,11,o" irequenuv to rhe^pel resDondents^{not to callingPoll} the civil^{disputes and to grant}

¶29

IAN^:1OF 0

¶30

stances^statedin Petition^{underSection 151 CPCPraylngthat in thecircum} the affida^{vit filed in suPPortof the Petition, theHis h Court may bePleasedtod irect} the^{respondents Policenotto interferingthe clvlI disputes andnot to callingthe} petitioners^{to the Policestation frequently in accordance with law, Pending disPosal} of the^WritPetition

¶31

counsel^{for the Petitio ner: SRIP.V'VEN KA} GP^{TA FOR RAVI HOMESANKAR}

¶32

GP^{FOR RAVI HOMESANKARHOMESANKAR} ounsel^{for the ResPondentNos.1 to 4:} counsel^{for the Respo ndentNo.5:} The^{Cou rt madethe following:ORD ER}

¶33

¶34

THE HON'BLE Dr. IUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER WRIT PETITION No.598O OF 2022

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of

¶37

India, is filed by the petitioners, seeking the following relief:

¶38

"to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3'd and 4tn respondent is interfering the civil disputes and calling the petitioners to the police station frequently to advise the petitioners to compromise the civil disputes between the petitioners and the 5," respondent, on behalf of the 5rh respondent the respondent Nos.3 and 4 harass the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and ln violation of Article ),4 and Zl of Constrtdtio''t of India a1d conseqLrenUy prav,na this Honble Court to direct the 3.r and 41 :::p9L9.9"t.^{not ro ca[ingpotice starion frequen y to} the petitioners for compromise the civ,l disputes..,

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petiUoners, learned Assistant Government plead er for Home, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the record

¶40

The grievance of the petitioners is that they have purchased agricultural land admeasuring Ac.g-00 guntas in Survey No.133, situated at Appaipally Vi age, Wanaparthy Mandal, Wanaparthy District, under a regjstered Sate Deed, dated 05.01.2006 bearing Document No.19Ol2006. At the instance of the unofficial respondent No.5, the officiai respondent Nos. 3 and 4, are unnecessarily calling the petitjoners to police station and ma king them to compromise the c,vil dispute between them and the unofficial respondent No.S, which is illegal, arbitrary and violative oF the Fundamental rights of the

¶41

¶42

petitioners and^{ultimately, prayedthis Court to allow the Writ} Petition, as Pra Yed^for

¶43

Learned^{Assistant Government Pleaderfor Home'on} writteninstructions,dated02,o2,2022,wouldSubmitthatthere is no written^{complaint from the unofficial respondentNo'5 or} anybody^{against the petitioners'The petitionerswere not called} to the^{police station and the respondent-police did not interfere} with the^{civil disputes between the petitioners and the unofficial} respondent^No.5.

¶44

The said^{submissions of learned AssistantGovernment} Pleader^{for Home are taken on record-}

¶45

6.SincethereiSanavermentonoathbythepetitionersthat the respondent-^{policeare unnecessarilyinterfering with the civil} disputes,^{it is made clear that the respondent- policeshallnot} cause any^{interferencein the civil disputes betweenthe} petitioners and^{the respondentNo 5 in relation to the property} purchased by the^{petitioners under the aforesaid registeredSale} Deed, dated^{05.01.2006,bearing DocumentNo'190/2006'}

¶46

With the^{aboveobservation/direction} '^{this WritPetitionis} disposed^of.

¶47

MiscellaneousPetitions,ifany,pendinginthisWritPetition

¶48

shall stand^{closed. There shall be no order as to costs'}

¶49

ASSISTAN?D{5dS[1* //rRUE^coPY// .r"ffi^oFFrcER

¶50

To 1 2 3 4. 5 6 6;glffilgtrffiffiEubff#ruii;x. 7 8 loYtlo One Spare ""0'"'^OoPY Ki.*

¶51

HIGH COURT

¶52

DATED:09/0212022

¶53

Oa
1 y.9 STATE
f, 25 rLB 2q?-l
-t

¶54

ORDER

¶55

WP.No.5980 of 2022

¶56

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶57

69.,o' %- -rq\a

Gonur Ramesh v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gonur Ramesh 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

Sri. Bolishetty Chinna Rajaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Managing Committee Vs The State of Telangana and another

Sri. Tekumatla Lingaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Abdullah Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Sangi Shetty Butchi Babu and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 12 Others

Md. Tabrez Vs The State of Telangana