Disposed

Vallapu Lingaiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Nov 2023WP/30115/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition and miscellaneous applications seeking direction to police to register a cognizable offence. The court found pending civil disputes and lack of a closure report. It directed the police to furnish the closure report to the petitioner rather than mandating registration or dismissal, letting the petitioner approach the competent forum subsequently.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.5 to furnish the copy of the closure report to the petitioner.

Vallapu Lingaiah Vs The State of Telangana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e6 ]

¶2

I I I I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE S' TELANGANA AT HYDE JfJiDOF (Speciat Originat Jurls-Oiction;

¶4

MgT?TY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER Two THoUSAND AND TWENiYfiR.E;'.

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITIONN O: 30 115 0F 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

&iiT,Ui{l,t;*,:3,lll,".y,,n"iah^{Ased 64 years occ. asricurture} rto Maddirata

¶10

AND

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

g!S.9t#'t& ",jrJ"'i3[g3*'^{Rep bv} Principar secretary, Home Deparrment

¶13

2 3 4 5. iffi="1,*t";,tj#:[l:rr;hti#".J:r#ffi^{:'"i]jr#,^,runsa,hu.hy} 6i:i."ro tnspector of potice, Maddirata potice Station, At Maddirala, Suryapet

¶14

...RESPONDENTS petition under Article 226 0f the const,ution of rndia prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particurarry. one in the nature of writ of Mandamus' decraring the action of the respondent nos.4 and 5 in not registering crime basing on the report dt-B-10-2023 submitted by the petitioner with regard to cognizabre offence and not proceeding further by conducting investigation and taking action against the curprits, is iregar, arbitrary,viorative of principres of naturar justice and consequenry direct the respondent nos.4 and 5 to register crime basing on the report dt.B-10-2023 submitted by the petitioner and take further action against the culprits.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumslancesstated} in the affidavit filed in suppo( of^{the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} direct the respondent nos.4 and 5 to^{register crimebasingon the report} dt.8-10-2023 submitted by the^{petitionerin a cognizable offenseand take further} action, pending disposal of the above^{writpetitionin the interest of justice.}

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M.^{V. HANUMANTHA RAO}

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.3Ol 15 of2O23

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

This writ petition is filed to declare the action ol respondent Nos.4 and 5 in not registering the crime basing on the report, dated Oa.lO.2023, submitted by the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, direct respondent Nos.4 and 5 to register the crime.

¶24

The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessor of agriculture land admeasuring Ac.0.2O guntas in Sy.No.434/Ru situated at Maddirala Village and Mandal, Suryapet District. It is the further case of the petitioner that there is a dispute vvith regard to the entries in the revenue records, which necessiated the petitioner to file an appeal, revision and W.P.No. 15747 of 2021. By an order, dated 29.04.2022, this Court remanded the matter to the Tahsildar, Maddirala for reconsideration and the Tahsildar, having examined the case had dismissed the claims of the adjacent owrrer, Nuwla Linga Reddy. It is the further case of the petitioner that even after the matters attaining finality, when Nawula Linga Reddy, is interfering with his

¶25

¶26

¶27

CVBR, J \'p 3() I l-s 202.i

¶28

possession and causing inconvenience for his enjoyment over the said property, the petitioner was constrained to institute a suit for perpetual injunction ulde O.S.No.6 1 of 2O2O on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Thungathurthy and the said Court also granted ad interim injunction in LA.No.1O6 of 2O2O, dated 29.06.2020. It is the further case of the petitioner that stating said facts he also lodged a complaint before the respondents-police on O8. 10.2023. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after receiving the said complaint, the respondents-police are not taking any action for registration of the crime against Nawula Linga Reddy, who is frequently interfering and causing inconvenience to him for enjoying the property.

¶29

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents-police had submitted that after receipt of the complaint, dated 08.1O.2023, submitted by the petitioner, the respondents-police have conducted a preliminary enquiry and the said enquiry revealed that there are serious civil disputes pending between the petitioner and Nawula Linga Reddy and since O.S.No.61 of 2O2O is pending they have closed the complaint as civil in

¶30

¶31

CVBR. J Wp 301 15 2013

¶32

nature and also communicated the same to the petitioner on 14.10.2023.

¶33

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far the petitioner has not received any closure report and if the copy of the closure report is furnished he will take appropriate steps by approaching the competent forum.

¶34

In view of the said submissions, this Court deerns it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing respondent No.S to furnish the copy of the closure report to the petitioner to enable him to take appropriate steps as available under law.

¶35

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶36

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed

¶37

Sd/. B. SARASWATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, T.S.,Hyderabad. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Suryapet District, At Suryapet. 3. The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Suryapet, Suryapet District.

¶43

The Circle lnspector of Police, Tungathurthy Police Station, At Tungathurthy, Suryapet District.

¶44

The Sub lnspector of Police, Maddirala Police Station, At Maddirala, Suryapet Dist.

¶45

Two CCs to GP for HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] \

¶46

One CC to SRl. M. V. HANUMANTHA RAO, Advocite [OPUC] 8. Two CD Copies

B M IVP

$t&

r-f

I I

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611112023

ORDER

WP.No.30115 of 2023

1 e STAr€r
(
T,z
c (-
2 I N0\J 2[2] -L. I
t ()
D,.t S f,A1

¶57

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶58

1\ \ .l3
"'{t*o

Vallapu Lingaiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vallapu Lingaiah 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

Hyderabad Leather Work Vs Visakhapatnam Steel Plant

Smt. M. Manemma @ Vadla Manemma Vs The State of Telangana

Rajamoor Ram Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Rapan Venkata Jyothi Vs State of Telangana

Mr. Mahipatbhai Jesingbhai Dodiya Vs the State of Telangana

Miryala Ramadevi Vs The State of Telangana