Disposed

Mir Jalaluddin Ali Khan (Alias Mohammed Jalaluddin Akbar) v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Mar 2022WP/9908/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 regarding non-provision of police aid for a land survey, the High Court observed that the respondents had no objection to the survey. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition without passing any substantive orders, advising officers to seek police aid if obstructions arise.

What did the court decide?

No specific relief granted; petition disposed of with advice to seek police aid if obstruction occurs.

Mir Jalaluddin Ali Khan (Alias… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 9908 OF 2022

¶6

Betwee n:

¶7

tr,4ir Jalaluddin Ali Khan (Alias Mohammed Jataluddin Akbar), S/o Late. Ir,4ir Zahooruddin Ali Khan Alias Zahooruddin, Aged 67 years, Occ.Business, R/o H.No.9-1-523/209iA, Diamond Hills, Hyderabaij, Rep. 6y his AGpA Holder Shaik Vali Ahmed Rahman S/o Late.Shaik lrrladaar, Aged 67 years. Occ.Business, R/o Flat No.401 and 402 H.No.10-4-'13/B 11, Hawa Rahaesh, Humayun Nagar, lr,4asab Tank, Hyderabad.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

2 The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. .) The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banjarahills Division, Hyderabad.

¶12

4 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone. A.C.Guards, Hyderabad. 5 The Station House Officer, P.S,Banjarahills, Hyderabad.

¶13

6 Sub-lnspector of Police, P.S Banjka Hills, Hyderabad

¶14

7 Sri.l,4ohammed Jawed, S/o lt4ohammed Haroon, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.^'1-6-52. lvlurad Nagar, Hydera6ad.

¶15

8 Sri.Vijay Bisen, S/o Lockchand Bisen, Aged about 45 years, Occ.Business, R/o plot No.87, First Lancer Road, BadiBazar, Syed i\agar, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 o'f lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affjdavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS, or any other appropriate Writ or Writs, declaring the letter dated 15-02-2022 issued by the 6th respondent and the action of the Respondents No.2 to 6 in not providing Police Aid to the officials of the Deputy Director Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, to conduct the survey and demarcation of the petitioners land in TS.No.28lP and 291p, Block-H of Shaikpet

¶18

Vilrage' correrated survey No 12gl85, situated at shaikpet Virage and r,4andal, Hyderabad' as i'egar, arbitrary, unconstitutionar and viorative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and Consequen,y set aside the Reply to complaint dated 15-02-2022 issued by the 6th respondent and direct the Respondents Nos' 2 to 6 to provide porice Aid to the officiars of the Deputy Director survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, for the smooth conduct of survey and demarcation of the petitioners rand, on the date requested by the Deputy Director Survey and Land Records, and may pass

¶19

IA NO: 10F 2022

¶20

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to DTRECT the Respondents No.2 to 6 to re-consider the request of the petitioner dated '06-02-2 022 for providing Police Aid to the Survey officials at the costs of the petitioner, for smooth conduct of survey and demarcation of the petitioners land situated in TS No 2,lp and 29rp, Block-H of Shaikpet virage, correlated to Survey No..l29185, situated at Shaikpet Village and I,4andal, Hyderabad, on the next date fixed of survey fixed by the office of the Deputy Director Survey & Land Records' Hyderabad, fairing which the petitioner wi, suffer grave and irreparable loss, pendinq disposal of the writ petition, and may pass

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner:SRl. MUDDU VIJAY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents No 1 to 6: Gp FOR HOME

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents No 7 to 8: Ms. p KRISHNA KEERTANA

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HoN'BLE DT. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER T PETI o N No.9 90 OF 0 2

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This Writ petition, under Arflcle 226 ofthe Constitution of india, is filed seeking the following prayer:

¶28

our,,.r,u.,tt onl'[t,n] .]i]l: 9fd". o- Dirsq1,6n llx :aii;i:Li Hn' f #!:,.'j .[T"t:[i, *;J :i;.:ijTii;:.t: jlf Jt#i'"',',fl ffi ',:i.I"^:.::;i;t

¶29

_. yq. vcy dno Land

¶30

2 Heard Sri K,Ramakanth Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

¶31

representing Sri Muddu Vijay, iearned counsel for the petitioner, Iearned Assistant G overn ment pleader For Horne, appearing for respondent No.1 to 6, Ms. p. Krishna Keertana, lea rned counsel appearing For respondent Nos.7 and B and perused the reco rd.

¶32

2 petitioner is that^{since the} 3. The^{grievance of the} and B are^{obstructing for} unofficial^{resPondentNos T} conducting^{survey in respectof the land admeasuring} Ac.15-00^{guntas in Survey No'129/85' situated at Shaikpet} Village and^{Mandal, Hyderabad,belonging to the petitioner'} the petitioner^{lodged a complaint beforerespondentNo'6 to} provide police^{protectionto the subject property But' the} respondent^{No.6 erroneously closed the said complaintas} 'civil in nature'and ultimately,^{prayed this Court to allowthe} Writ Petition,^as PraYed^for'

¶33

Learned^{counsel for the respondentNos T and B would} submit that^{notices were issuedto the respondent Nos'7and} I intimating^{about conductingof survey in respect of the} subject^{land and they haveno objection for survey and they} are ready^{to cooperatewith the survey officials'}

¶34

Since respondent^{Nos'7 and 8, have no objection for} survey of^{the subject land, no furtherorders are requiredto} be^{passedin this Writ Petition' However' in the event of any} obstruction,thesurveyofficialsmayseekrequisitepoliceaid from the respondent-police^{for completion of the survey of the} subject^land.

¶35

¶36

6, Wiih the above observations, the Writ petition is

¶37

disposed of.

¶38

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶40

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

¶41

SD/.K.ONESIM ASSISTAHEGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'

¶42

To,

¶43

SECTION OFFICER

¶44

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

¶45

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶46

The Assistant Commissioner of Poljce, Banjarahills Divjsion, Hyderabad.

¶47

The Deputy Commissioner of police, West Zone. A.C.Guards, Hyderabad.

¶48

The Station House Officer, P.S,Banjarahills, Hyderabad.

¶49

Sub-lnspector of Police, P.S. Banjka Hills, Hyderabad

¶50

One CC to SRl. MUDDU VtJAy Advocate [OpUC]

¶51

B. One CC to Ms. P KRISHNA KEERTANA, Advocate[OpUC]

¶52

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Tetangana. [OUT]

¶53

10.Two CD Copies

¶54

'1 1. One Spare Copy

rsn SB

^.F

HIGH COURT

DRSA,J

DATED:0310312022

1HE SL{ 15
t
+ (
Jo
L) 2t l4AB 2022

¶61

ORDER

¶62

WP.No.9908 of 2022

¶63

DISI'0S INC OF"f I.IIi WERIT PE-TI]'ION

¶64

\, I'I'I IOL'1' COS'I'S

¶65

Mir Jalaluddin Ali Khan (Alias Mohammed Jalaluddin Akbar) v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mir Jalaluddin Ali Khan (Alias Mohammed Jalaluddin Akbar) 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

R.Kala Bai Vs The State of Telangana

Mrs. K. Lakshmi Devi Vs The State of Telangana

Erikilla Purushotham Vs The State of Telangana and 10 Others

Dr. Ravula Jagadeeshwar Prasad Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

M/s. Midhomes Hotels Private Limited Vs the State of Telangana and 3 others

M/s. Midhomes Hotels Private Limited Vs the State of Telangana