Disposed

Md. Faizuddin v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Dec 2023WP/19131/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the High Court directed the Superintendent of Police to examine the petitioner's complaints regarding fire, demolition, and theft, and to inquire whether subordinate police officials interfered in a pending civil suit, before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Superintendent of Police to examine the complaints and conduct an enquiry into whether the Circle Inspector and Sub Inspector interfered with the pending civil suit or dispossessed the pe

Md. Faizuddin Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 19131 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Md. Faizuddin, S/o. Md. lbrahim, aged about 62 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No..2-18-98, Kollapur Village and lvlandal, Nagarkurnool District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2 The Superintendent of Police, Nagarkurnool District, Nagarkurnool.

¶13

J The Circle lnspector of Police, Kollapur, Nagarkurnool District.

¶14

4 The Sub lnspector of Police, Police Station Kollapur, Nagarkurnool District.

¶15

5 Sri Bala Venkataramana, S/o. Not known, Aged about 40 years, Sub lnspector of Police, Kollapur Police Station, Kollapur, Nagarkurnool District.

¶16

Md. Ali, S/o. Naseeruddin, Aged about 32^years, Occ. Pvt. Service,^Rl/o. the house besides office of the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Nagarkurnool Town and District.

¶17

Md. Chand Pasha, S/o. Naseeruddin, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Business, R/o. the house besides office of the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Nagarkumool Town and District.

¶18

Md. Mahamood, S/o. Mahaboob, Aged about 60^years, Occ. Agriculture, Ryo. the house besides office of the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Nagarkurnool Town and District.

¶19

Md. Khadeer, S/o. Sirajuddin, Aged about 38^years, Occ. Pvt. Service, Ri/o. the house besides office of the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Nagarkurnool Town and District.

¶20

10.Md. Darvesh, S/o. Mahamood, Aged about 31 years, Occ. Electrician, Fl/o. the house besides office of the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology, Nagarkumool Town and District.

¶21

..RESPONDENTS

¶22

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in not taking the compliant of the petitioner on file as filed as against the unofficial respondents for their committing the offence in setting fire to the saw mill H. No. 2-18-24, at Chukkaipally colony and in demolishing the house property bearing No. 2-18-1^'l 1 at Rangadas Street, Kollapur on ground level and committing theft of machinery and wood material and also in not taking action by the 2^d respondent as against the Sth respondent who by colluding with the unofficial respondents committed the offence of setting fire and demolition of the properties of the petitioner, as illegal, unlawful, contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to take immediate action as against the unofficial respondents for their committing the above offences and 2nd respondent may also be directed to take action as against the 5th respondent Sub lnspector of Police who coluded with the unofficial respondents to commit the above offences.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶24

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 issue interim order directing the respondents 2 to 4 to take complaint of the petitioner on file and take necessary legal action against the unofficial respondents for their committing the offence in setting fire to the saw nrill H. No. 2-18-24, at Chukkaipally colony and in demolishing the house property bearing No. 2-18-1 1 1 at Rangadas Street, Kollapur on ground level and committing theft of machinery and wood material, pending disposal of main Writ Petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M DAMODAR REDDY

¶26

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 5: AGP FOR HOME

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.6 to 10: NONE APPEARED

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

.-7

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASXAR^REDDY

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.19131 OF 2o23

¶32

ORDER

¶33

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution^of

¶34

India, is hled seeking the follorving reliet

¶35

"to issue an order or direction^{more particularlyone in the} nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of^resPondents2 to 4 in not taking the complaint of the petitioner filed^againstthe unofflrcial respondents for their committing the^offence in^setting fire to the saw millH.No.2- 18-24 at Chukkaipaly colony and in demolishing the house property bearing No.2-18-111^at Rangadas Street, Kollapur, on the ground^level and committing theft of machinery and wood material and also in not taking action by ten 2"d respondent as against the 5fi^{respondentwho} by colluding with the unofhcial respondents committed^the offence of setting fire and demolition of the^properties of^the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal, unlawful and consequentty direct respondent Nos.2 to 4 to take immediate action as against^the unofhcial respondents for their committing the above^offences and 2"d respondent may also be directed to^{take actionas against} the 5m respondent Sub Inspector of^police, who colluded^with the unofhcial respondents to commit the above offences..."

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for

¶37

respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and perused the record

¶38

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of old house bearing No.2-18-i1, at Kollapur^Village and Mandal, Nagarkurnool District,. having purchased^{the same} from one Ali and since the date of purchase he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. It is the case of the petitioner that he is maintaining a big Kharkana in the said

¶39

¶40

house where he stored entire wood material and he has been doing wood work by engaging workers. The case of the petitioner is that since there is a civil suit pending in respect of the aforesaid house propert5z in O.S.No.188 of 2076 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur, hled by ol:e Zameel Ahmed and another, the petitioner stopped the wood work in the said house, but still machinery and wood material is stored in the said house. It is further case of the petitioner that when the unofficial respondents dismantled the existing structures and committed theft of wood material kept in the house, the petitioner approached respondent Nos.3 and 4 on 05.06.2023 and filed a written complaint about the theft. But they have not taken any action. It is further case of the petitioner that on 06.07.2023 at 1 1:00 AM again the when unoff icial respondents and respondent No.5, who is Sub-lnspector of Police along with JCB came to the subject house and demolished the entire house and took the entire material, the petitioner again lodged a written complaint on 09.O7 .2023 before the District Superintendent of Police, Nagarkurnool District. But, no action has been taken on the said complaint. Hence, the Writ Petition.

¶41

l,earned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.4 is not taking any action on the said

:-------7

complaints though the contents of the^said complaints^would disclose commission of cognizable offences.^{Learnedcounsel} further contended that when respondent Nos.3 and 4^are interfering with the civil disputes between the^{petitionerand} respondent Nos.6 to 10, respondent Nos.3 and 4^{are iiable for} departmental enquiry for interference with the civil^disputes pending adjudication of the suit in O.S.No.188 of 2016.

¶46

This Court, without expressing any opinion^rvhether respondent Nos.3 and 4 are interfering with the civil^disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.6 to^{10, deems it} appropriate to dispose of the writ^{petition directing respondent} No.2 to examine the complaints, dated O5.06.2023^and O9.O7.2023 lodged by the petitioner and^to conduct^{an enquiry} whether respondent Nos.3 and 4 are interfering with the^civil disputes between the petitioner and^{respondent Nos.6 to 1O or} dispossessing the petitioner from the^{subject property,as} alleged in the writ petition,^{pendingadjudication of the suit in} O.S.No. 188 ol 2016.

¶47

With the above observations, the Writ^Petitionis disposed of. There shall be no order^{as to costs}

¶48

¶49

-l

¶50

Miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this Writ

¶51

Petition shall stand closed

¶52

SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT SEGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII \ .,/ <V

¶53

SECTION OFFICER

¶54

To,

¶55

1 . The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, The State of Telanoana, Hvderabad.

¶56

1. The Superintdndent of police, Nagarkurnool District, Nagarkurnool.

¶57

The Circte tnspector of potice, Ko)i;pu;, r.rjga-rk;iidol oistrict. 4 E. The sub rnsoector of porice, porice Siiii""^-x"rripri't tagarkuinoor District 9n" 99^{to Sri M. Damodar'RetJv,-Aori,"ri"'itidrjcf}

¶58

6 Two CCs to Gp for Home, High C,irrtioii["-si-"ie"Jtetangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶59

Two CD Copies

TJ GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1911212023

ORDER

WP.No.19131 of 2023

1H E STA}€
k
o)
c
3 1 JAll 2[l[
//
...}

Drc PA^i c<br>

¶66

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶67

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶68

/.-'-..
t,r-
fl<br>v\ ).''^^

Md. Faizuddin v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Faizuddin 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

Velijala Karthik Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Muzammil Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana

Mirza Basheer Baig Vs The State of Telangana

K. Neethu Vs The State of Telangana

Khaja Nawazuddin Vs The State Of Telangana

Joga Kumari Vs The State of Telangana