Disposed

Boda Arogyam, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Jun 2023WP/10423/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions were heard together regarding police inaction on complaints of criminal trespass over disputed land. The High Court directed police to register complaints to check for cognizable offences but treated the matter as largely civil in nature.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to file complaint with police; Police to register if cognizable offence found per Lalita Kumari guidelines.

Boda Arogyam, Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUST]CE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRT PETITION NOs.10423. 10706 Al.lD 1OLA OF 2023

¶7

wRtT PETITION NO.10423 0F 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Boda Arogyam, S/o. Late Boda Peddulu, Aged 53 years, Occ. Govt. Employee, R/o.H.No.27-1 3-'103, Hasanaparthy Village and Mandal, Hanumakonda District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Warangal District at Warangal.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Kakatiya University Police Station (KUC) Hanumakonda.

¶15

Mothe Hari Krishna, S/o. Sambaiah, Age 32 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.4-83, Sreeramulapally Village, Kamalapur Mandal, Hanumakonda District.

¶16

Pingili Vasantha, W/o.Sathis Reddy, Age 38 years, Occ. Housewife, Fi/o. H. No. 1 -43, Narlapur Village, Nadikuda Mandal, Warangal District.

¶17

Kurapati Narender Raju, S/o.Appala Raju, Age 43 years, Occ. Business, F/o.6-4-61/5, Bramhanwada, Hanumakonda District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of

¶20

¶21

Writ of l\ilandarnus declaring the action of the respondent No,1 to 3 for not registering an0 investigating the complaint against the trespassers i.e., respondents 4 tc 6 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and also consequently direct the respondent No.3 to register and investigate the same.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the circumstances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleased to} directing the respondents 1 to 3 to^{provide police aid for implementing the} injunction order dated 21 .03.2023^{passedin O.S. No. 350 of 2023 on the file of} the Hon'ble Sper;ial Judicial t,4agistrate of^{First Class under PCR Act-cum-ll} Additional Junior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda^{dulyconsidering petitioner's} complaint dated 03.04.2023.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.^R. SUNIL KUMAR

¶25

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

¶26

Gounsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI A. JAGAN

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 6:^--

¶28

WRlr PETrroN No.10706 012023

¶29

Between:

¶30

Boda Kumara Swamy,^{S/o. Late BodaPeddulu,Aged69 years,} .^Occ:Private. Employee, R/o. H.No.'27-13-103,^{Hasanaparthy Village and Mandal, Hanumakonda} District.

...PETITIONER

AND

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

¶35

¶36

The Commissioner of Police, Warangal District at Warangal.

¶37

The Station House OfFicer, Kakatiya University Police Station (KUC) Hanumakonda.

¶38

a. {tjgeli Muralidhar Reddy, S/o Hamasa Reddy, aged 41 years, occ: Business, F/o. H. no 2- 1- 675,Gopalpur, Hanmakonda City and Didtrict.

¶39

Challa-BuchileQdy, S/o. Guruva Reddy, age 72 yearc, occ: Business, F/o H.No. 5- 1 1- 5'l5,Vidyaranyapuri, Hanmakonda City and district.

¶40

Boosi Rudramadevi, W/o Ravindereddy, age 61 years, occ: House wife, Rl/o H.No 2- 9- 2O7|'t, Vikasnagar, Hanmakonda City ahd district.

¶41

Va.lusa ftlryesh, S/o ChinnaVenkataiah, age 56 years, occ: Business. R/o H.No 4-97, Sriramulapally, Kamalapuer mandal, Hahmakbnda diskiCt.-^-'

¶42

B. Siddamallasrioja, wo Gaddamkrishna, D/o Rajeshwarraoaoe 31 vears. occ. Housewife, FIo H.No.35-4-160, Gopalapuram, Hanamakond6.

¶43

Gone_Thirupathi Reddy, S/o Komurelli, age 42 years, occ: Business. Fl/o

¶44

H. No.5- 1 7, Sriramutapaili village, Kamatapu-rManO5l, Hanmakondi Oiit,i6t.

¶45

...RESPONDENTS

¶46

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit 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 declaring the action of the respondent No. 1 to 3 for not registering and investigating the complaint against the trespassers i.e., respondents 4 to 6 as illegal, arbitrary, violation-of Article 14 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and also consequenfly direct the respondent No. 3 to register and investigate the same.

¶47

lA NO:^'t OF 2023

¶48

Petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to directing the respondents 1 to 3 to provide police aid for implementing the injunction order dated 20. 03. 2023 passed in o.S.No. 3s2 of 2023 on the file of

¶49

¶50

the Hon'ble Special Judicial l,4aqistrate of First class under pcR Act-cum-ll Additional Junior civ Judge, Hanumakonda dury considering petitioners complaint dated 03.C4.2023.

¶51

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.R. SUNIL KUMAR

¶52

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Gp FOR HOME

¶53

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 to g: -

¶54

WRIT PETITION NO.10734 oF 2023

¶55

Between:

¶56

9gOg.9.*qqy,-S/o^{LateBodaPeddutu,Aged 53 years, Occ. private.Employee,} F/o.H.No.27-13-103, Hasanaparthy Vittage andMand-al, Hanumakonda District.^'

¶57

...PETITIONER

¶58

AND

¶59

The State of Telanqana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Build ing-s, Secretiriat, Hyderaba'd.

¶60

The Commissioner of Police, Warangal District at Warangal

¶61

The Station House Officer, Kakatiya University Police Station (KUC) Hanumakonda.

¶62

Gundamidi Suresh, s/o Sambaiah, aged about 38 years, occ. Business, F/o H.No. 7-195, Hasanparthy village and mandal, Hanmakonda.

¶63

Paka Swathi, w/o Paka Raju, aged about 37 years, occ. Household, R/o H.No. 4-7911, Gudur Village, Kamalapur Mandal, Hanmakonda.

¶64

Ambi Kavitha, Wo Kranthikumar, aged about 41 years, occ. Household, R/o H.No. 5-1 1-370/3 Vidyanapuri, Hanmakonda City and District

¶65

Gadrakota Ramesh, S/o Rajaiah, aged about 35 years, occ. Business, F/o H.No. 6-42, Ambala village, KamalapurMandal, Hanmakonda

¶66

Vanga Laxriri, Wo. Odelu, aged about 50 years, occ. Household, Rl/o. H.No. 1-90, Venkateshwara pally village, Parkal Mandal, Hanmakonda

¶67

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶68

Petition under Arricle 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated ir the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be preased to issue. a Writ, order or Direction more particurarry one in the nature of

¶69

ri:!'--j '+'

¶70

Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 to 3 for not registering and investigating the complaint against the trespassers i.e., respondents 4 to 6 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Article^'14 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and also consequently direct the respondent No.3 to register and investigate the same.

¶71

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶72

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to directing the respondents^'1 to 3 to provide police aid for implementing the injunction order dated 21.03.2023 passed in o.s. No. 3so of 2023 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Junior civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First class at Hanumkonda duly considering petitioner's complaint dated 03.04.2023.

¶73

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. R. SUNIL KUMAR

¶74

Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR HOME

¶75

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶76

THE r{OvBLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR l(EDDy WRIT PETITION Nos.l0423 10706 and 70734 of 2023

¶77

COMMON ORDER:

¶78

Since thc issue invohecl in all these three rvrit petitions is one and the sarne, the rvrit petitions are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.

¶79

The petitioners claim to be the owners of their respective open land, admeasuring 2662 square yards out^{of the land} situated in Survey No.118,^{HasanparthyViilage and Mandal,} Hanumankonda District. lt is stated that^{BoclaYugendcr,the} brother of the petitioners, has filed a suit for partition rridc O.S.No.526 of 201,5 on the file of the learned I^{AdditionalSenior} Civil Judge, Warangal, and the said suit^{was closed in terms of} compromise aid,: order and decree dated 16.12.201(r. It^{is stated} that in terms of the said compromise decree,^{the subjectland i.e.,} an extent of Ac.0.22 guntas (2662 square yards) of land^was allotted to each^rrf the petitioners and physical possession^{of the} said land was also delivered to them. It is further stated that when the unofficial respondents interfered with their possession, the petitioners have approacht'd the leamed Special Judicial

¶80

¶81

;.?-

¶82

Magistrate of^{FirstClassunderPCR Act-cum-ll AdditionalJunior} Civil Judge,^{Hanumakonda,and filed suits for perpetual} injunction zride^{O.S.No'356of 2023, O'S'No 352 of 2023 and} O.S.No.350 of^{2023 respectively.The Court below has granted} injunction orders^{in I.A.No.103 of 2023 in O'S'No'356of 2023'} I.A.No.95 of 2023^{in O.S.No.352of 2023,and I.A.No.195 of 2023in} O.S.No.350 of 2023^{ttide otdersdated24-03.2023, 20.032023 and} 21,.03.2023 respectively.^{The said suits are pending adjudication'} It is further stated that^{the unofficialrespondents are interfering} with the possession and enjoyment^{of the petitionersover the} subject lands, and therefore.^{in order to} Prevent^{their interference} and criminal kespass into^{the subjectlands, the petitioners have} lodged complaints before the^{respondentpolice.}

¶83

The grievance of the^{petitionersis that even thoughthe} complaints lodged by^{them disclose cognizable offence, the} respondent police are not^{registeringtheircomplaints against the} unofficial respondents.

¶84

Sri A. Jagan, learned^{counsel appearing for respondent} No.4 in W.P.No.10423 of 2023,^{has stated that there are civil} disputes between the petitioners and^{respondent Nos.4 to 5 in}

I \

I I

W.P.No.l042ll of 2023, anr1 thelefore, the petitioner is dragging the police into the civil clisptrtes by lodging complaint- l-etinrec'l counsel has further stak,d that in case the petitioners feel that responclent N os.4 to 6 have violated the injunction order, the remedy available to the petitioners is to file an application untler Order XXXIX Rule 3(a) C P C, but they cannot approach this Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oJ. India

¶89

Having regard to the fact that the petitioners are only seeking to register crimes against the unofficial respondents for criminal trespass ancl they are not seeking any police aid, this Court deems :t appropriate to dispose of the writ petitions directing the respondent police to examine the complaints given by the petitiorrers and if ihe said complaints disclose any cognizable offence, the respondent police shall take appropriate action strictly in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumai o. Gooernment of Uttar

Pradesh ard othersT,

'^{(2008) 7 scc164}

}):