Disposed

Kodadi Mallesh Babu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC28 Nov 2023WP/23872/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition filed against police officers for allegedly interfering in a civil land dispute. The court held police cannot intervene in civil disputes unless required for investigation, directing them to follow Cr.P.C. procedures.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 4 to 6 not to interfere with civil disputes and to follow Cr.P.C. procedure if presence is needed for investigation.

Kodadi Mallesh Babu Vs The State of Telangana — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

l i ! I I

¶3

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

¶4

[^32e6 ]

¶5

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

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO:23872 OF 2023

¶9

Between:

¶10

Kodadi Mallesh Babu, S/o. Bhoomaiah, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. Baddenapelli Village, Thangallapelly Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District, T.S.

¶11

AND

¶12

...PETIT|ONER

¶13

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

¶14

The Director General Of Police, Lakdikapool. Hvderabad.

¶15

The Superintendent of Police, Rajanna Sircilia District.

¶16

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sircilla, Raianna Skcilla District.

¶17

The Circle lnspector of Police (Rural), Sircilla, Raianna Sircilla District. 6. Venkateshwarlu Goud, S/o. Not known to the oetitioner Aoed Maior. Occ. S_1. of Police Thangallapally Police, Station Thangallapally, R5;anna biriilta District.

¶18

Koyyada Parsharamulu @ Prrshaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged 40 years, Occ_ fgrtquttqe.,.^{R/o.Baddenapalli village, Thangattapally lvtandal Hajanna Sircilla} District, T.S.

¶19

Koyyada_Rl9hq Wo. Parsharamulu @ Parshaiah Aged 35 years, Occ . Housewife R/o.Baddenapalli village, Thangallapally Mandal Rajanna Sircilla District, T.S.

¶20

(oyyada Laxmi, Wo.Mallaiah Aged 60 years, Occ . Housewife

¶21

R/o.Baddenapalli village, Thangallapally lrilandal Rajanna Sircilla District, T.S.

¶22

'10. Koyyada Nithish, S/o.Parsharamulu @ Parshaiah Aged 25 years, Occ . Labour Rl/o_.Baddenapalli village, Thangallapally Mandal Rajanna Sircilla District, T.S.

¶23

1 1 . Jakkani Raju, S/o.Venkatesham Aged 43 years, Occ . Business Rl/o.H.M.7-627, fVlarket Area Sircilla Town and Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶24

Guggilla Bhoomesh, S/o.Mallaiah Aged 46 years, Occ . Business Rl/o.sArampelli Village, Thangallapally Mandal Rajanna Sircilla District, T.S.

¶25

...RESPONOENTS

¶26

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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.4 to 6

¶27

¶28

in calling the petitioner and his family members to their police station at Thangallapelly and made to sit in the Police Station for forcible settlement of Civil dispute with Respondent No.7 to 12 under threat and coercion to foist false criminal cases as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of Cr.P.C. and violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 not to call the petitioner and his family .^{members unnecessarilyto the RespondentNo.4 to 6 police stationfor} forcible settlement of civil dispute with the Respondent Nos.7 to 12 under threat of foisting false criminal cases without registration of crime against the petitioner.

¶29

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶30

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 direct the Respondent Nos.4 to 6 not to call the petitioner and his family members to their police station without registration of any crime at the instance of Respondent Nos.7 to 12 for forcible settlement of Civil disputes under the threat of foisting false criminal case against the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.SHRAVAN KUMAR GOUD Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 5: AGP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.6 TO 12: -

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶34

UrRIT PETITION No.23872 OF 2o23

¶35

ORDER

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the^{petitioner, learned Assistant} Government Pleader for Home,^{appearingfor respondent Nos. Ito} 6 and perused the record.

¶37

2- This Writ Petition, under Article^{226 ofthe}

¶38

Constitution of India, is filed^{seekingthe followingrelief:}

¶39

".-.....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or^{Directionmore} particularll one in the nature of Writ^{of lvlandamus' declaring the} action of the Respondent^{Nos. 4 to 6 in calling the petitioner and} hrs famill members to their^police station^{at Thangallapellrand} made to sit in the Potice Station^{for forcible settlement of Civil} dispute !\ith Respondent^{No. 7} to^{12 under threat aIId coercionto} foiJt false criminal cases as illegal,^{arbitrary, unconstitutional} and contrary to the^{provisionsof Cr'P.Cand violationof Article14} and 21 of Constitution of^{India andconsequently directthe} Respondent Nos.2 to 6 not to call^{the petitioner andhis famill} members unnecessaril-v- to the^{RespondentNo.4 to 6} Police station for forcible settlement^{of civil disputewith the Respondent} Nos. 7 to l2 under threat of foisting^{falsecnminalcases without} registratron o[ crime against^the Petitioner^{and to pass such other} relief....".

¶40

It is the case of the^{petitionerthat he is the absolute} owner and possessor of land^{admeasuring 542.67 square yards in} Survey No.555/3, situated at Baddenapalli^{Village, Thangallapally} Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District,^{having purchasedthe same} under a registered document bearing^{No -4207 of 2012, daLed'} 06.07.2012. It is the further case of^{the petitionerthatwhen} respondent No.7 and others are^{interfering withhis} ^peaceful

CVBRJ \4p 23812]023

possession and enjoyment^{over thesubject property, the} petitioner instituted a suit^{in O.S-No.1OOof 2023on the file of the} Principal Junior Civil^{Judge, RajannaSircilla District,and hnally} the said suit was^{decreed in his favour restrainingrespondent} No.7 and his henchmen^{from interferingwith hispeaceful} possession and enjoyment over^{the subject property'The} grievance of the petitioner is^{that in spite of passing of the said} decree, respondent^{Nos.4 to 6are interfering with the civil} disputes between^{the petitioner and respondent Nos'7 to 12'}

¶45

Learned counsel for the^{petitioner has vehemently} argued that respondent^{Nos.4to 6, without havingany right,} power or authority, are interfering^{with the Civil disputes pending} between the petitioner^{and respondent Nos.7 aod 12, which would} amount to violation of the^{rights of the petitioner guaranteed} under Articles 14, 2l^{arld 3OO-A of the Constitutionof India'}

¶46

On t).e other hand, Sri^{Venkata RaghuMannepalli,} learned counsel appearing^{for respondent No. 11 has strenuously} contended that respondent^{No. 11 is the absolute owner aid} possessor of the land,^{whichis abetting to the land, being claimed} by the petitioner.^{He furthersubmitted that there are disputes} with regard to identification of^{boundaries,classihcation,} localization etc., of the subject^{propertybetween the- petitiongr} - +ri.

CVBRJ *P_11872 ?0ll

and respondent No.ll^{and whenthe petitionerand othersare} interfering with peaceful^{possessionand enjoymentof respondent} No.1i over the subject^property, he^{hled W.P.No.42105 ol 2015} before this Court and this Court following^{the judgmentof the} Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalita^{Kumari v- Government} of Uttar Pradeshl disposed of^{the said Writ Petitiondirectingthe} respondent-police to register a crime against the^respondents therein uide order, d,ated 29.12.2015.^{He furthersubmitted that} even after registration of the crime,^{the petitionerand othersare} interfering with the^{peaceful possession and enjoymentof} respondent No.11 over the^property

¶51

Respondent No.4 filed counter-affidavit^{stating that} the petitioner as well as respondent^{No. I} I^{lodgedcomplaintsand} the same were registered^{as cases} in^{Crime Nos.280 of 2023 and} 298 of 2023 and both the cases^{are pendingfor investigation-He} further submitted that except conducting^{investigation,the} respondent-police are not interfering with the civil^disputes between the petitioner and the^private respondents.^{He further} submitted that even though respondent^{No.6-Sub-lnspectorof} Police, Thangallapatly Police Station, is added^{as party respondent} by name, respondent No.6 is no^{way concerned with the civil}

t (2014) 2 scc 1

CVBRJ wp]3812 2021

disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to 12. He further submitted that except discharging the duties of registration of crimes, the respondent-police are not interfering in the civil disputes.

¶56

In view of the said submissions, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing respondent Nos.4 to 6 not to interfere with the civil disputes pending between the petitioner and respondent Nos.7 to 12 in any manner and if the presence of either of the parties is required for the purpose of investigation in pending cases, respondent Nos.4 to 6 are directed to foliow due procedure of law, as contemplated under the Code of Criminal ProcedUre, 1973.

¶57

With above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed

¶58

of. There sha,ll be no order as to costs.

¶59

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition

¶60

shall stand closed.

¶61

SD/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR^RAO ASSISTANT REGIS R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 The Principal Secretary,^{Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of} Telanoana. 2 The Director General Of^{Police, Lakdikapool,Hyderabad.} 3 The Suoerintendent of Police,^{Raianna Sircilla District.} 4 ffre Oe'putv Superintendent^{of Police, Sircilla, Raianna Sircilla District'} 5 fne Cirbte i nsp'ector of Police^{(Rural), Sircilla, Rajanna Sircilla District.} 6 One CC to Sdl P.SHRAVAN^{KUI\iIARGOUD, Advocate} [OPUC] 7 Two CCs to GP FOR^{HOIvlE, HighCourt for the State of Telangana, at} Hyderabad. [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies PSK. GJP 9m(

HIGH COURT

DATED:2811112023

ORDER

WP.No.23872 ot 2023

1$E SrA16.
(
A
y
clo ? 1 [Et ?023
t
DEs;pf..t

¶71

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶72

Pt(q >gtto-to-g'

Kodadi Mallesh Babu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kodadi Mallesh Babu 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

Cases cited

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

Palleti Yadamma Vs The State of Telangana