Dismissed

V.Madan, S/o.Late v.Jaihind Rao v. The State of Telangana.

Telangana HC3 Oct 2023WP/195/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition because the petitioner failed to file any representation despite multiple listings, showing lack of interest. However, noting the land was allegedly needed for an Anganwadi, the Court directed the police to investigate the matter following Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar guidelines before dismissing the petition on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the police to investigate the matter following Section 41-A Cr.P.C. and Arnesh Kumar guidelines.

V.Madan, S/o.Late v.Jaihind Rao Vs The State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

wRlT PETTT|ON NO.'t9s OF 2015

¶7

Between:

¶8

V.Madan, S/o.Late V.Jaihind Rao, Aged about 35 years, Rt/o.H.No.1-3-44g113, Kawadiguda, Hyderabad

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The lnspector of Police, Gandhinagar Police Station, Hyderabad

¶13

The Greater Hyderabad tvlunicipal Corporation, Rep. by its Deputy Commissioner, Circle -9, Abids, Hyderabad

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

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 writ or order direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in interfering with ttre construction activity of the petitioner at D.No.1-3-448113, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 2nd respondent herein not to interfere with the construction activity at D.No.1-3-448113 Kavadiguda, Hyderabad pursuant to the permission granted by the 3'd respondent vide permit No.36672/DC/CZCir-9l2O14 dated 22 9 2O14.

¶16

(

¶17

i i I I I t Ii i ;

¶18

WPMP. NO: 208 oF 2015

¶19

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cgurt may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent herein not to interfere with the construction activity at D.No.13-448113, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad pursuant to the permission granted by the 3rd respondent vide permit No.36672/Dc/czlcir-912014 dated 22.9.2014 in favour of the petitioner.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI B. CHANDRA SHEKHAR (NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI SAI RAM, AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D. NARSIMULU, S.C. FOR GHMC

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

a,r$'

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL

¶25

WRIT PETITION No.195 of 2015

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The present Writ Petition is filed^{under Article 226 of} Constitution of India for the^{followingrelief/ s:-}

¶28

"... to issue^{a Writ or order or directionmoreparticularly} one in the nature of Writ of^{Mandamus, declaringthe} action of the 2"d respondent^{ininterferingwith the} construction activity of the^{petitionerat D.No. l-3-448/ 13'} Kavadiguda, Hyderabad as^{illegal, arbitrar5r and} consequently direct the 2"d^{respondent herein not to} interfere with the construction^activityat D.No. l-3-448/ 13, Kavadiguda,^{Hyderabad' gursuant to the} permission granted by the 3'd^{respondertvide permit} No.36672/DC/CZlcir-9 /20A,^{dated 22.09.2oL4 and} pass such other order or orders ..."

¶29

No representation on behatf^{of the petitioner. Heard} Mr. Sai Ram, learned^{Assistant GovernmentPleader for Home} appearing for respondent^{Nos' I and 2.}

¶30

A perusal of the record^{shows that there was no} representation on^{behalf of the petitioner on 22'09} '2023^and 2g.O9.2O23. Even today^{also, there is no representationon} behalf of the petitioner inspite^{of listing the matter under the} caption, "for dismissal".^{This showsthat the petitioner is not} evincing any interest^{to prosecutethe case' Therefore, this} Court is inclined to dispose^{of the Writ Petition on merits'}

¶31

¶32

As per the Writ Affidavit, it is averred that, the petitioner herein had purchased the house bearing D.No. l-3-448/13 situated at Kavadiguda, Hyderabad in the year, 2OO4 by registered sale deed document bearing No.1690/2004 dated 16.06.2OO4, from its lawful owner for valuable sale consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property.

¶33

The petitioner, in order to construct a new building in place of an old one, made an application to respondent No.3 by submitting all the relevant documents and paying the requisite fee of Rs.48,750/-. After due verification, respondent No.3 issued the permit bearing No.36672/DC/CZ/Cir.9/20A vide file No.97853/ 13/12l2Ol3lCOg, dated 22.O9.2014 sanctioning the plan for the construction of residential house with G + I^st floor. Thereupon, the petitioner had started construction over the subject property.

¶34

Whileso, respondent No.2 police started harassing the petitioner, by calling him to police station, at the instigation of third parties and threatened him not to make any further construction over the subject property, stating that the proceedin-gs issued by respondent No.3 were fabricated. Thus,

¶35

¶36

I i

¶37

respondent No.2 started interfering in the^construction activity of the petitioner and directing him orally not to^make further construction, else, he would^{prosecuted.Therefore,} the petitioner sought for the indulgence of this^{Court and} prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

¶38

karned Assistant Government^{Pleader by f-tlinga copy} of written instructions dated 12.01.2015^{addressed to the} Sub-Inspector of Police, Gandhi^{Nagar Police Station,} Hyderabad City submitted that as^per the^records, one Smt. K. Sukeshini, Child^{Development ProjectOfficer,} ICDS Project, Secunderabad approached^{respondentNo.2 and} lodged a complaint stating that the^{subject land was allotted} for construction the of Anganwadi^{Building andon} ll.I2.2Ol4, the local people informed^{her throughphonethat} some persons were making^{illegal constructions at their site.} On verihcation by the police, it^{was found that one Laxmi} Manga Taya occupied the land and^{startedconstructionover} the said land. Therefore, sought to take^{action against one} Laxmi Manga Taya as^{per law.}

¶39

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor^{would further} submit that respondent^{No.2 never asked the petitioner to}

¶40

¶41

stop the construction activity in the subject premises and only on a mere apprehension, the petitioner fiIed the present Writ Petition. Therefore, seeks to dismiss the Writ petition as infructuous

¶42

In view of the submissions made by the leamed Assistant Government pleader and upon perusal of the material record as well as the written instructions, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has neither filed the present complaint nor he is in possession of the subject land in question. The matter is purely civil in nature wherein this petitioner is not at all an aggrieved party.

¶43

I 0. How,ever, as the subject land was meant for construction of the Anganwadi building, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to direct the respondent police to conduct investigation, strictly foltowing the procedure as contemplated under Section 41_A of Cr.p.C. and the guidelines formulated by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar u. StoLte of Bihart scrupulously. It is needless to mention that, any deviation in this regard will be vier,r,ed seriously.

I (2O141 8 SCC 27.1

I I . With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶48

of. No costs.

¶49

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

¶50

closed.