Disposed

Palleti Yadamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Nov 2023WP/23834/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions to the police to register a complaint and take action against respondents accused of cheating and trespassing in a property dispute. The court held that it would not interfere with the underlying civil dispute and directed the police only to act if a cognizable offense is revealed.

What did the court decide?

Directed police not to interfere with civil dispute; if complaint reveals cognizable offence, direct police to take appropriate action.

Palleti Yadamma Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³²⁹⁶ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE

¶5

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶8

wRlT PETITION NO: 23834 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

Palleti Yadamma, Wo Muthaiah, aged^about 35^{years, Occ Agriculture,Rl/o} Kethepalli Village, Nampalli Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶11

.....PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{Home Department'} Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

). The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶15

The Deputy Superintendent of Policd, Devarakonda,^{NalgondaDistrict.}

¶16

The Circle lnspector of Police, Nampalli Circle, Nalgonda^District.

¶17

The Station House Officer, Nampalli Police^{Station, NampalliMandal,} Nalgonda District.

¶18

Papakanti Yellamma, Wo Yadagiri, Aged about^{45 years,Occ} ;Agrrculture, R/d Thungapad Gourram Village, Nampalli Mandal,^{Nalgonda Diskict}

¶19

Papakanti Yadagiri, S/o Ramaiah, aged about^{50 years, Occ} ;^Agriculture, R/6 Thungapad Gourram Village, Nampalli^{Mandal, NalgondaDistrict}

¶20

Papakanti Chandu, S/o Yadagiri, aged about^{25 years,Occ; Agriculture,} R/o Thungapad Gourram Village, Nampalli^{Mandal, NalgondaDistrict.}

¶21

Papakanti Sukanya, S/o Yadagiri, aged about^{30 yealsr Occ} ,^Agriculture, R/6 Thungapad Gourram Village, Nampalli^{Mandal, NalgondaDistrict.}

¶22

l0.Thuppari Raghu, S/o not known, aged about^{40 years, Occ} ;^{Agriculture' R/o} Mall Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶23

1 1. Thuppari Mallesh,, S/o not known, aged about^{40 years,Occ} ;^{Agriculture,R/o} Mail Village and Mandal, Nalgonda^District.

¶24

Basipaka Naresh,, S/o not known, aged about^{37 years'Occ} ;^{Agriculture,R/o} Chittepad Village, Nampalli Mandal.^{NalgondaDistrict.}

¶25

l3.Budigapaka Raju, S/o not known, aged about^{40 years,} _Occ.;^{Agriculture,R/o} Banda Thimmapur Village, Nampalli^Mandal, Nalgonda^Dtstrict.

¶26

Budigapaka Suii, Wo Raiu, aged abgyt 35^ye.qr9,Occ ;^{Agricu.lture, R/o} Band; Thimma'pur Village, Nampalli^Mandal, Nalgonda^District.

¶27

Petition Under Article 226^{of the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order^{or direction more particularly one in} the nature of writ of^{Mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondentNo.S in} non-receiving the complaint^{fromthe petitionerand nontaking necessary action} against the respondent^{No.6to 14 and others, who are cheatedthe petitioner} and sold the land to the^{petitioner and obtainedan amount of Rs.1,80,000/-,} cheated the^petitioner, thereafter^{they trespassedthe land of the petitioner and} they hatched a^plan and^{created the panic situations and threated withdire} consequences, is highly^{illegat, arbitrary,unconstitutional,violationof Article 14} of the constitution of lndia^{and consequently directthe respondent No.S to} receive the complaint from the^{petitionerand to takenecessary actionagainst} the respondent Nos.6 to^{14 and others, who are cheatedthe petitioner and sold} the land to the^petitioner and^{obtained an amountof Rs.1,8C,000/-, cheated the} petitioner, thereafter they trespassed the land of^{the petitionerand theyhatched} a plan and created the^{panic situations and threated with dire consequences.} I.A.NO:1 OF2023

¶28

Petition Under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated} in the affidavii filed in support of^{the petition,the High Court may be pleased to} direct the respondent^{No.5 to receive the complaint from the petitionerand to} take necessary action^{against the respondent Nos.6 to 14 and others, who are} cheated the^petitioner and sold the^{land to the petitionerand obtained an amount} of Rs.1,80,000/-, cheated the^{petitioner. thereafter they trespassed the land of} the^petitioner and they^{hatched a plan and created the panic situations and} threated with dire consequences^{pendrngdisposal of the writ petition.}

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner^{: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR}

¶30

Counse! for the Respondent^{Nos.1 to 5 : AGP FOR HOME}

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.6 to 14 : --}

¶32

The Court made the following^ORDER

¶33

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASI(3R^REDDY

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.23834 OF 2o23

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

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

¶37

India, is hled seeking the following relief:

¶38

".......to issue an appropriate writ order or^{direction more} particutarty one in the nature of Writ of^{Mandamus declaring} the action of the respondent No 5 in^{non-receiving the} complaint from the^petitioner and non-taking^{necessaryaction} against respondent Nos. 6 to¹⁴ and^{others,who are cheated} the petitioner and sotd the^land to^the Petitioner^{and obtained} an amount of Rs 1,80,000/-^{cheatedthe petitioner,thereaJter} they trespassed the land of the^{petitioner andtheyhatched a} plan and created the panic situations and threatened^{with dire} consequences is highll illegal, arbitrary,^{unconstitutiona-I,} violati.on of Articte 14 of the Constitution^{ofIndia and} consequently direct respondent^{No.S to receive the complaint} from the petitioner and to take^{necessary action against} respondent Nos.6 to 14 and others,^{whoare cheatedthe} petitioner and sold the land to the petitioner and obtained^an amount of Rs.t,80,000/-, cheated the^{petitioner, thereafter} they trespassed the tand of the Petitioner^{andtheyhatcheda} plan and created the panic sttuations and threatened^{with dire} consequences and^pass such other^{orderor ordersas this} Hon'lf,le Court ma! deem fit and^{properin the circumstancesof} the case."

¶39

It is the case of the^{petitioner that respondent No.6} was the absolute owner and^{possessor of agricultural land to an} extent of Ac.1.10 guntas in^{Survey Nos. 130/E,131/E, l32lE'} l34lE,, 135/E and I36/E, situated at^{KethepalliRevenue} Village, Nampatly Mandal,^{Nalgonda District. It is furthercase of} the petitioner that she cntered^{into an Agreementof SaIe with} respondent No.6 for^purchase oi^{the said propertyat the rate of} Rs. 1,8O,0OO/- and accordingly executed^{an Agreement of Sale}

¶40

¶41

on 22.01.2023 and paid an amount of Rs.1,6O,0OO/- on different dates. It is further case of the petitioner that thereafter disputes arose between herself and respondent No.6, for which the petitioner approached respondent No.2 for registration of crime against respondent No.6. As no action has been taken on the said complaint, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Peti tion.

¶42

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, has submitted that there are disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.6 and a civil suit in O.S.No.35O ot 2023 on the hle of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda is pending between parties, therefore, no action has been taken on the complaint, submitted by the petitioner.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 has submitted that when the petitioner is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of respondent No.6, respondent No.6 has instituted a suit in O.S.No.3SO of 2023 on the file o[ Principal Junior Civil Judge, Devarakonda, and the said Court also granted interim injunction urde order dated 08.08-2023 in I.A.No.849 of 2023, restraining the writ petitioner and others from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject property. Learned

¶44

¶45

counsel further submitted that the petitioner with a inala frde intention to circumvent from the case, has lodged a false complaint against respondent No.6 and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed in limini.

¶46

This Court, without expressing any opinion on the rights of either of the parties with regard to ownership or title, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent-police not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.6 in any manner and if either of the parties hles any complaint ald if the said complaint reveals cognizable offence, respondent-police are directed to take appropriate action, in accordance with law.

¶47

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is

¶48

disposed of. No costs.

¶49

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶50

closed

¶51

SD'. T.JAYASREE ASSTSTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY" vt/ SECTION^OFFICER

¶52

To 1. The Principal^{Secretary' Home Department' Secretariat Building' Secretariat'} 2. 3. 4. 5. i[H'il'f^{ffi iiqd}]]+$;ffi ;rffit+'-t'#ffi ,:

¶53

1. if,l3"#33^{$'J"lo,no,n", Hish court ror the stateor relansana at} BIl'St?S^{J?H]lor, en".r'r,AdvocatetoPucl}

¶54

¶55

SA Two cD "o0,.. ..r.k

HIGH COURT

DATED:2811112023

ORDER

WP.No.23834 of 2023

1 B€ STAT e
t
q
oJ t
o 1 B 0EC 2023 C,
"':
* D A:S PAl

¶61

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶62

WITHOUT CSOTS.

¶63

Palleti Yadamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palleti Yadamma 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

Mandadi Pitchamma Vs The State of Telangana

S. R. Mutually Aided Co- Operative housing Society Ltd. , Vs The State of Telangana

Nampally Sai, Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. B. Priyanka Vs The State of Telangana

K. Madhusudan Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Kodadi Mallesh Babu Vs The State of Telangana