Disposed

Mohd Sikinder v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC1 Dec 2023WP/27600/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 and Section 151 CPC, petitioners challenged the police intervention to settle a civil property dispute involving their dairy farm. The High Court held that police are not interfering and disposed of the petition directing respondents not to interfere with the civil dispute pending between parties.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Respondents 4 and 5 directed not to interfere with the civil dispute pending between the petitioners and respondent No. 6 in any manner except in accordance with law.

Mohd Sikinder Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 27600 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 Mohd Sikinder, S/o: Fakir lvlohammed, Aged about 30^{years, Occ: Business} Proprietor of Ayesha Dairy Farm Rlo 5-77126, Raidurgam,^{Sherilingampalli} Hyderabad 500 018

¶10

Shaik Fakir Mohammed, S/o: Late Raj lt/ohammed,^{Agedabout 67 years,} Occ: Business, No 5-77126, Raidurgam, Sherilingampalli^{Hyderabad500 018}

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

2 The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy district

¶15

3 The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, Gachibwoli, Ranga Reddy district.

¶16

4 The Station House officer, Rayadurgam Police Station, Rayadurgam,^Ranga Reddy district

¶17

A M. Mahesh, Circle lnspector Rayadurgam P.S. Cyberabad^RangaReddy district

¶18

6 Golla Srinivas, aged 58 years, Occ: Real Estate Broker,^Rl/o Nanakramguda, Ranga Reddy district

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia^{prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the nature of WRIT OF TUANDAIVUS declaring the action^{of the respondents4} and 5 in interfering and settling the civil dispute between the^{petitioners and 6th} respondent in respect of the petitioners Ayesha dairy Farm shed extent^{of 1264}

¶21

Sq.yards with House No.5-77127^(PTIN No. 1209940654)^{and also big room} consisting of 1050 Sq. Yards House No. 5-77126^{(PTIN No. 1209939632) total} admeasuring 2603.03 Sq.yards in Sy.No.83/P^situated at^Rayadurtgam ' Sherilingampally mandal, Ranga Reddy district is illegal, arbitrary^{and violativeof} Article 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also violation of Settled^Principlesof law laid down by the Hon'ble Constitutional courts and consequently^directthe respondents 4 and 5 not to interfere and settle the Civil^{matter in the} Respondents 4 and 5^police station in respect of the above stated^houses.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

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^pleasedto direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to interfere and settle the civil^{matterin respect} of the in petitioner Ayesha Dairy Farm shed extent of 1264 Sq.yards^{with House} No.5-77127 (PTIN No. 1209940654) and also big room consisting of^{'1050 Sq.} Yards House No. 5-77126 (PTIN No. 120993S632) total admeasuring^2603.03 Sq.yards in Sy.No.83iP situated at Rayadurgam , Sherilingampally^mandal, Ranga Reddy district pending disposal of the writ^petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI GOPIGARU SAI DINESH

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: GP FOR HOME

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 and 6: NONE APPEARED

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.276OO of 2o23

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

¶32

"...to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in interfering and settling the civil dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.6 in respect of the petitioners' Ayesha dairy Farm shed extent of 1264 Square Yards with House No.577 127 (PTIN No 1209940654) and also big room consisting of 1O5O Square Yards House No.577 /26 (PTIN No 1209939632l. total admeasuring 2603.O3 Square yards in Sy.No.S3/P situated at Rayadurgam, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy district is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 2l of the Constitution of India and also violation of Settled Principles of law laid down by the Honourable Constitutional courts..."

¶33

It is alleged that the petitioners are the owners and possessors of land admeasuring 1264 square yards with H.No.5-77 127 and also bit room consisting of 1050 square

¶34

¶35

CVBR. J Wp 27600 2023

¶36

yards in H.No.5-77 /26 in Sy.No.S3/P situated at Rayadurgam, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is the further case of the petitioners that they have established a dairy farm in the name and style as Ayesha Dairy Farm. It is the further case of the petitioners that when respondent No.6 is interfering with their possession and causing inconvenience for their enjoyment, they also lodged a complaint, dated 22.03.2023 before respondent No.4. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.4 instead of taking action on the complaint submitted by them, frequently summoning them to the police station and forcing them to enter into the settlement with respondent No.6.

¶37

l,earned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. I to 4 has submitted that there are cirril disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.6 and the respondents-police are not interfering with the civil disputes in any manner.

¶38

¶39

CVI]R, J wp 27600 2023

¶40

In view of the said submissions, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent Nos.4 and 5 not to interfere with the civil disputes pending between the petitioners and respondent No.6 in respect of the subject property, in any manner, except in accordance with law.

¶41

With the above observations, the Writ petition is

¶42

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if

¶44

any, shall stand closed.

¶45

To,

¶46

sD/' N' c;3tflD#Ii=#HSffR //rRUE coPY//

¶47

secrroJSirrcen

¶48

The Principal Secretary.^{Department of Home, Secretariat Buildings' The} State of T6langana,^Hyderabad

¶49

i;;"C;ri;i;;ffiei^{or i'oticdCyberabad Commissionerate Gachibowli'} Ranga ReddY^district

¶50

irr"-^-oeoutv Commissioner^{of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate'} Gachibwoli, Ranga^{ReddY district'}

¶51

i#'6i;iiil ir'.:iji"^{otricei nJv,t"s" Police Station' Ravadursam'Ranga} Reddv district

¶52

iriE ic'i" sii^{GopigaruSaiDinesh,AdvocatetoPU-CJ} 6. iil Ca.'t"^{Gircii Ftom", nighcou't for the State of Telangana'at} Hyderabad [OUT]

¶53

Two CD CoPies

TJ GJP ts

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 11212023

ORDER

WP.No.27600 of 2023

1 SE STAr e'
(
e
J
oz
2 2 0Ec 2023
-b
4

(f'
Da'5pi.TC'<br>

¶60

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶61

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶62

(g"r,*

Mohd Sikinder v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd Sikinder 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

Mohd Abdul Raoof Sayyed Vs The State of Telangana

Shivalingari Madhan Mohan Goud Vs State of Telangana

The Branch Manager Vs The State of Telangana

Nevuri Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Mr.Pulla Anwesh Vs The State of Telangana

V.Anantharaman Goud Vs The State of Telangana