Dismissed

Erla Venkateswarlu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC12 Jun 2023WP/10489/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged police interferenee in his _pos session of land via civil suit. Station House Officer denied intervention; _. Court _. directed police not to interfere with civil disputes except under law.

What did the court decide?

Directd respondent No.4 not to interfere with civil disputes between petitioner and respondent No.5 except under procedure_ established by law.

Erla Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 J

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 10489 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Erla Venkateswarlu, 9/o: Tirupathiah, Aged 4l years, occ. Soil Work, Rl/o. Sundaraiahnagar, Mulkalapali Village and Mandal Bhadradri Kothagudeni District.

¶9

..,PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

,the Stale of Telangana, rep by Principal Secretary (Home) Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Director General of Police, Police Head euarters, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, BhadradriKothagudem District, Kothagudem.

¶14

The Station House Officer, Police Station Mulkapalapplly, BhadradriKothagudem District,

¶15

Kondaveeti Raja Rao, S/o: Papaiah, aged 45 years, Occ. Cultivation, Rl/o Mulkalapali Village & Mandal BhadradriKothagudem District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High - court may be pleased to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature o1 Mandamus'duly declaring the action of the 4th respondent herein in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property vide agricurturar rand admeasuring 3!oul^{Ageq 6- 00 guntasin Sy No. 64tE at Mulak-atapaily} Viilage and Mandat, BhadradriKothagudem District and forcing me to setfle the [rivateiispute with ith respondent herein as iilegar, arbitrary and against the principres or naturat justte and consequenflv direct the respondents noi to interfere in ine civ, Ji.prt.lrlro not to interfere with the possession ano enl0yment of the above mentioned property in the interest of justice.

¶18

f---1

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

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 not to interfere in the civil disputes and not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the of the property vide agricultural land admeasuring about Acers 6- 00 guntas in Sy No. 64/E at Mulakalapally Village and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District in the interest of^justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA

¶22

Gounsel for the Respondent No. 1 to 4: GP FOR HOME

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent No.5: --

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRIIUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶27

WRIT PETITION N0.10489 of2023

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This writ petition has been filed seeking the following

¶30

relief:

¶31

"..to pass an order or direction or rurit in the nature of Mandamus iluly -declaing tlrc action of the 4tt, responden't lurein in inturfeing ruitlr the peaceful possession attd enjoyment of the^property oide agricultuiaL land admeasuring about Acers 6-00 guntas in Sy No.6ffi at Mulakalapaliy Village and Mandal, BltadradiKothngudem District nnld forcing^{me to settle the} prioate disputi toitlt Sth respondent herein ,as illegal, ,arbitrary and against the priniiples of ' , natural justice and consequently direct the respondents not tL interfere in the ciail disputes and not to inierfere zuith the possession and enjoyment of thr abooe mentionid property in tlu interest of justice.,,

¶32

It is stated that the father of the petitioner has purchased

¶33

the land, admeasuring Acs.6.00 guntas in Survey No.64/ E situated at Mulakalapally Village and Mandal, Bhadrari Kothakudem District, under an unregistered sale deed/sada bainama, way back tn 1969, and since then he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is stated that after the demise of his father, the petitioner inherited the subject land. It is further stated that respondent No.5 has managed the revenue authorities * -nd- gdt his name mutated in the pahanies. Therefore. the

¶34

¶35

¶36

petitioner has filed ROR Appeal under Section 9 of the A.P. (TS) Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971,. After abolition of the Revenue Courts, the Special Tribunal has taken up the said Appeal as Special Tribunal Case No.35 of 202'1. and disposed of the same directing the Tahsildar, Mulakalapalli, to cancel^the passbook in favour of re'spondent No.5. It is^{stated that} respondent No.5 has a lso f ilcd a s:uit aide O.S.No.92^{of 2020 before} the Agency Court ancl the satne is pending adjudication.

¶37

The grievance of the pctitioner is that respondent^No.4,at the instigation of respondent No.5.^{is interferingwith the civil} disputes between him and t'espondent No.5^{and directinghim to} settle the dispu te by entering into compromise

¶38

Though rrotice has been served on respondent No.5,^he did not choose to errter appearalrce before this Court either^{in person} or tfuough leanred counsel

¶39

Learned .Assistant Govcrnment Pleader for^Home,basing on instructions received frotn respondent^{No.4,has statedthat} respondent No.4 is not interfering with the civil^{disputes between} the petitioner and respondent No.5 in any manner

¶40

d-d...J

¶41

¶42

; i t J

¶43

Recording the said submission, this Writ petition is

¶44

disposed of directing respondent No.4 not to interfere with the

¶45

civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.4 in any

¶46

manner except under the procedure established by law

¶47

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶48

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶49

SD/. P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTAIIIREGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

sE[#N oFFrcER

To,

The Station House Officer, Police Station Mulkapalapplly,

¶54

BhadradriKothagudem District,

¶55

One CC to Sri. P. Rama Sharana Sharma, Advocate [OPUC]

¶56

Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶57

Two CD Copies

TJ GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 210612023

ORQER

WP.No.10489 of 2023

o F
tt
s
l.l +
s.
l_<br>\ /.
.9 H +

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶65

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶66

Erla Venkateswarlu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Erla Venkateswarlu 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

Shaik Jahangir Vs The State of Telangana

R Chinna Peddanna Vs K.Ravinder Rao

Susmitha Johnson Vs The State of Telangana

Mahesh Parvani Vs Mr. K.Satyanarayana

Borra Ramesh , Tillu Vs The State of Telangana

Boda Arogyam, Vs The State of Telangana