Disposed

Abdul Rahman Bin Ahmed v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Dec 2023WP/24799/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the failure of police to aid in implementing a civil injunction. The Court declined to act on the inter se property dispute, directed the civil court to expedite the pending application, and ordered police to follow statutory guidelines for investigation.

What did the court decide?

High Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing opinion on inter se disputes, directed civil court to expedite disposal, and directed police to investigate under statutory guidelines.

Abdul Rahman Bin Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

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

¶3

SATURDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 24799 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Abdul Rahman Bin Ahmed, S/o. Ahmed Bin Ali, Aged 67^years, Occ. Agriculture, Fl/o.H.No.9-7-1 , Behind. Ir/.R.O Office,^{Azadnagar, Mulugu} Mandal, I\4ulugu District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Superintendent of Police, [Vlulugu,^I,4ulugu District.

¶13

3 The Station House Officer, lVlulugu Police Station,^{IVulugu District.} 4 Keshetty Kutumba Rao, S/o. Late Keshetty Ramaswamy,^{Aged50 years,} Occ.Agiiculture, Rl/o. H. No.6-1 56, Jankulawada^{Village, Mulugu lVlandal,} Mulugu District.

¶14

5 Bogineni Vengaiah, S/o. Mala Kondaiah, Aged^{47 years,Occ. Business,} Rl/o-. Old Court Building, Mulugu Village,^{lVlulugu [Vlandal and District.}

¶15

6 Kethe Mallaiah, S/o. Chinna Ailumallu, Aged 55^{years,Occ. Agriculture,} Rl/o. Bandarupally Village, Mulugu lvlandal^{and Districl.}

¶16

7 Kethe Komuraiah, S/o. Chinna Ailumallu,^{Aged about53 years,} Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Bandarupally^{Village, Mulugu [Vlandal and District.}

¶17

8 Kethe Ailaiah, S/o. Chinna Ailumallu, Aged 53^{years, Occ.Agriculture,} R/o. Bandarupally Village, Mulugu Mandal^{and District.}

¶18

I Kethe Kumaraswamy, S/o. Pedda Ailumallu,^{Aged 47 years, Occ. Business,} F/o. Bandarupally Viilage, Mulug^{t,4andal,Ivlulugu District.}

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filedtherewith, the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more^{particularly one in the nature of}

¶21

"Writ of Mandamus" declaring the action of the respondents No.2 and 3 in not giving Police aid in implementing the orders passed by the Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mulugu in lA NO.31 ol 2022 in OS NO. 145 of 2022, dt.21-06-2023 in pursuance of represenlations made by the petitioner dt.31-07-2023 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 and 21 of the constitution of lndia consequently direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to grant police aid to implement the temporary injunction granted in lA No. 31 of 2022 in OS No. 145 of 2022, d1.21-06-2023 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge at Mulugu.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

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 respondents No.2 and 3 to implement the temporary injunction granted in lA No. 31 of 2022 in OS No. 145 of 2022, dt.21-06-2023 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge at Mulugu, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J VENKATESWARA REDDY

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME

¶26

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4 to 9: NONE APPEARED

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24799 of 2o23

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

This writ petition is filed praying this Court to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not giving police aid in implementing the order, dated 21.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mulugu in I.A.No.31 of 2022 in O.S.No.145 of 2022 in pursuance of the representation, dated 31.07 .2023 made by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrar5r and violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India

¶31

The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1.2O gts. in Sy.No.356/A situated at Bandaripally Village, Mulugu Mandal and District, having purchased the same under simple sale deed, dated 2O.O9.2OOO. It is the case of the petitioner that when respondent Nos.4 to 9 are interfering with his peaceful possession, he was constrained to institute a civil suit uide O.S.No.145 of 2022 on the file of Junior^Civil Judge, Mulugu seeking declaration of title and^permanent injunction and the said Court also granted ad interim

./...

i l I i ; ..: I l l

injunction in his favour on21.06.2O23 in I.A.No.3l of 2022. It is the further case of the petitioner that even after injunction orders, the respondent Nos.4 to 9 are interfering with his peaceful possession and causing inconvenience for enjoyment of the said property and also threatened him with dire consequences, as such he has lodged a complaint, dated 31.O7.2O23 before respondent Nos.2 and 3 and also filed I.A.No.32O of 2023 in I.A.No.31 of 2022 in O.S.No.145 of 2022 for implementation of the injunction order granted in LA.No.31 of 2022. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that pending adjudication of I.A.No.32O of 2023, respondent Nos.4 to 9 are threatening him and the respondents-police are also not providing police aid for implementation of injunction order, dated 21.06.2023 granted in LA.No.31 of 2022 in O.S.No.14S of 2022.

¶37

Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 9 has vehemently contended that against the order, dated 21.O6.2023 passed in I.A.No.31 of 2022 in O.S.No.145 of 2022 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Mulugu, respondent Nos.S to 9 have preferred C.M.A.No.12 of 2023 and the same is pending for

¶38

¶39

adjudication. He further argued that the present writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking implementation of the injunction orders grarlted in his favour is not maintainable as he is having an alternative remedy of filing an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A read with Section 151 C.P.C. Therefore, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed in limini

¶40

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits on that the petitioner has submitted a representation 31.07 .2023 not only seeking police aid but also to take action against respondent Nos.4 to 9 who have committed commission of cognizable offence. Though the said complaint reveals commission of cognizable offence, the respondents-police have closed the sarne as 'civil in nature'

¶41

Since the petitioner has Iiled this writ petition seeking implementation of th-e ad inteim injunction order, dated I 4.06.2023^{grhrrted in I.A.No.31 of 2022 in O.S.No.145 of} 2022 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Mulugu which is subject matter of an appeal ulde C.M.A.No.l2 of 2023, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the

--I-\ t:iai!?ti*s{ \

inter se disputes of the parties, deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition relegating the petitioner to approach competent civil Court and pursue remedies in I.A.No.32O of 2023 in I.A.No.31 of 2022 in O.S.No.145 of 2022 and the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mulugu, is directed to dispose of I.A.No.32O of 2023, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the complaint, dated 31.07.2023 lodged by the petitioner discloses cognizable offence, the respondentspolice are directed to examine the same in accordance with law. Further, the respondents-police are directed to issue notice as required under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. and shall also follow the guidelines issued by the Honble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State oJ Bihart, before initiating any action on the petitioner's complaint, if the presence of respondent Nos.4 to 9 is required for the purpose of investigation.

1 lzora; a scc zz: