Disposed

Kavati Chandra Shekar Yadav v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Nov 2023WP/27749/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by property owners seeking writ of mandamus against official respondents restraining interference with their property and liberty. The Court noted the dispute involved civil questions regarding land boundaries and identification, referring parties to the competent Civil Court while directing officials not to interfere in civil disputes and to follow due

What did the court decide?

Respondents 5 and 6 directed not to interfere with civil disputes pending between petitioners and respondents 7 to 9; police officials to follow due procedure if petitioners' presence is required for

Kavati Chandra Shekar Yadav Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32s6 J

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOi 27749 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 Kavati chandra shekar^yadav, sio.Late K.Mallaiah yadav. aoect about 57 vears Occ. ; Business, Rl/o^ptot No 181. Nethaii Nagar eijt""i.^-Crlrih* 'i;ri, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

2 Chepoo.lu lqmpo.ornacfr-ary, -Sio.Ch.Krishna Murthy, aged about 32 years. Occ : tmployee, R/o.H.No.6-5O/5, Chandanagar, Seritingahpa'ity, Hyderabad.'

¶10

.-...PETITIONERS

¶11

ANO

¶12

1 lle_Slale of T.elangana, Rep.by its principal Secretary Department of Home, ur.H.R.Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.-

¶13

The Director General of^police, Lakadikapul, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Deputy Commissioner of police, Madhaptr Zone, Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

The Assistant Commissioner of police, Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

The Station House Officer, Chandanagar police Station, Chandanagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶18

7 Pl;_Y?lrg^o,rlq !.aje9w.gp.{lo Ch V_enkateswara Rao, ased about 45 years, Occ Busrness, R/o.H.No.5-158/102,_Sai Sudha Residency, Adarsh Nagar, Aoad flo.1, Sefllingampally. Ranga Reddy District.

¶19

Ch.Venkateswara Rao, S/oNot kno-wn to the petitioners, aged about 52 years, Occ Rio H No 5- 158/1021 qai Suaha Residenc-y, nOarstr Na(lar, Hoio-

¶20

No.1 , 99r"t Senlingampally, Ranga Reddy ^Elql9y9", District.

¶21

Srinrvasa tqO9y..9tC ryqllnown to the petirioners, aged abour 45 years. Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.1-10211, Sarita Nilayam. Seritingimpa y Stati5n Road, Ranga Reddy District.

¶22

.....RESPONDENTS

¶23

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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly in the nature of wflt of

¶24

¶25

MANDAMUS declarrng the action of the official respondents in interfenng with the Petitroners' property and tife and Iiberty guaranteed under Nlicle 21 and 300-A of the constitution of lndia by calling the^petitioners to the police station wrthout there being any case either regrster or pending against the petitioners as arbitrary, illegal and vlolative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the official respondents not lo interfere with the Petitioners Property except in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Crimrnal Procedure Code 1973.

¶26

|.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶27

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petttion, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondents 5 and 6 not to interfere with the petitioners' property i.e., part of plot No.5 (western Part) in Sy.Nos.135, 136, 137,138,139 and 146 admeasuring i33.33 sq. yards siluated at Ramaiah Nagar Colony, Serilrngampally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District registered sale deed vide document No. 3718 of 201g dated 16-05-201g of the lg petitioner and part of Plot No.5 (western part) in Sy.Nos. 135, 136, 137, 138, 139 and 146 admeasuring 133.33 sq. yards situated at Ramaiah Nagar colony, serilingampally Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District of the 2"d petitioner without following the due process of law, pending drsposal of the above writ petition.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s AHMED LAW FIRM

¶29

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.l to G : AGp FOR HOME

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 to 9 : --

¶31

The Court made the following ORDER

¶32

,'t

¶33

¶34

HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶35

WRIT PETITION No.27749 of 2o23

¶36

ORDER:

¶37

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶38

".......to issue an appropiate Wit, Order or direction, more particularlg, in the nature of Wit of MANDAMUS, declaing the action of the offtcial respondents tn interfering u_tith the Petittoner's propertA and life and libertg guaranteed under Articles 21 and 3OO-A of the Constitution of India bg calting the Petitioners to the Police Station uithout there being urry case either register or pending against the petitioners as arbitrary, illegol and uioLatiue of fundamental ights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 3OO-A of the Constitution of Indio and consequenttg direct the oJficial respondents not to interfere u-tith the Petitioner's Property except in accordance tuith the procedure contemplated under Ciminal Procedure Code, 1973 and- pass such other relief...."

¶39

It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners

¶40

and possessors of part of Plot No.5 to an extent of 133.33 square yards each in Sy.Nos.135, 136, 137, 138, 139 and 146 situated at Ramaiah Nagar'Colony, Serilingampally Village and Mandal, having purchased the same through registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.3718 of 2018, dated 16.O5.20 18 and 46OO of 2OL8, dated 25.06.2O18, respectivety. It is the further case of the petitioners that after purchasing the said properties, they have also obtained building permission uide permit Nos.3O2878/8586/GHMCl2023, dated .,.30.08 .2023 and 302854 /7129 /cHMCl2O23, dated 14 .O7 .2023, respectively. The grievance of the pe' jtlqners is

¶41

)

¶42

that after obtaining permission, when they are proceeding with the construction in accordance with the building permission sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation, at the instance of respondent Nos.7 to 9, respondent l{os.S and 6 are interfering into their possession by lorcing them to stop the construction activit y

¶43

¶44

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 9 has submitted that in fact, respondent Nos.7 to 9 are the owners of the part of the plot in respect of the aforementioned survey numbers and that there is a dispute with rc.gard to the identification and localisation of the land forming part of said survey numbers and there are multiple registrati()ns effected over the same plot in Sy.Nos. 135, 136, 137, 138, iag ana 146. He further submitted that respondent Nos.7 to 9 also obtained building permission and they are proce:eding with the constructions in accordance with the building permission. He further submitted that respondent Nos.7 to 9 are not interfering with the construction activities of the petitioners in any manner and in fact, the petitioners are interfering with the possession of respondent Nos.7 to 9.

t \

{ I

,/'

Learned Assistant Government Pleader^forHome appearing for respondent Nos.l to 6^{has submitted that} acting on the complaint lodged by respondent No.7, a^{case in} Crime No.788 of 2023, for the offences^{punishableunder} Sections 447 and 427 IPC, was registered against^the petitioners.

¶50

Since the issue involved in this writ^petition is^with regard to the identification, loca-lisation and^{fixation of} boundaries and whether the subject land is forming^{part of} plot No.S in Sy.Nos. 135, 136, 137, 138, 139 and 146,^the parties have to approach competent Civil Court^for identification of the property and fixation of the^boundaries. Therefore, this Court, without expressing any opinion^{on the} merits of the case, deems it appropriate to^{dispose of the writ} petition directing respondent Nos.5 and 6 not to interfere with the civil disputes pending between^{the petitioners and} respondent Nos.7 to 9 in any manner and^{if the presenceof} the petitioners is required for the^{purpose of investigation in} Crime No.788 of 2023, respondent Nos.S and^{6 are directedto} follow due procedure contemplated^underlaw.

¶51

¶52

¶53

With the above observation, this Wr,t petition is

¶54

disposed of. No costs

¶55

¶56

As a sequel, miscellaneous petrtions pending, if any,

¶57

shall stand closed.

¶58

SD/-A.V.S. P D ASSISTANT REGI TRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION FFICER

The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Dr. B. R.Ambedkar Telangana

¶63

Secretarial. State of Telangana at Hyderabad

¶64

1. The Director General of Police, Lakadikapul, Hyderabad

¶65

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Gactilbowli. Hvderabad.

¶66

The Deputy Commissioner of Police. Madhapur Zone, Madhapur, Ranga Reddy District.

¶67

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Miyapur, Ranga Redd.y District. 6. The Slation House Officer, Chandanagar Police Station, Chandanagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶68

T_wo_9Cs to GP For Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. tourl

¶69

One CC to Mis Ahmed Law Frrm, [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies SA

HIGH COURT

DATED:17111t2023

ORDER

WP.No.27749 ol 2023

1HE STA 14:
q
J (
0 2 DEI 2sZJ z
tr
* *.A
i r;1ar- -,'J),

¶75

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶76

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶77

v)
rv

Kavati Chandra Shekar Yadav v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kavati Chandra Shekar Yadav 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

Ganapavarapu Sharada Vs Guttikonda Vijay

Kelavath Sree Rama Naik, Vs The State of Telangana

N. Madan Mohan Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Mohammed Faisal Ahmed, Vs the State of Telangana

Zakir Hussain Siddiqui, Vs The State of Telangana

Chelkala Ashok Vs The State of Telangana