Disposed

Mohammed Shafeeq Ahmed v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC13 Jun 2023WP/4442/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged police interference in a civil property dispute via writ petition under Art. 226 and submission under Section 151 CPC. The Court disposed of the petition, directing respondents not to interfere in civil disputes but allowing action under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. if a cognizable offence complaint is filed.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents No. 3 to 5 not to interfere in civil disputes; liberty to follow Section 41-A Cr.P.C. if a complaint of cognizable offence is submitted.

Mohammed Shafeeq Ahmed Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^32e61

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WR]T PETITION NO: 4442OF 2023

¶8

Between

¶9

Mohammed Shafeeq Ahmed, S/o. Mohammed Ayub, Aged about. 39^years Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No. 16-2-8671N2, Jeevanyarjung Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

-The Commissioner of Police,, Cyberabad Commissionerate, R.R.^Dist.

¶14

a. lfne Oy. Commissioner of Police,, Shamshabad Zone,^{R.R. Dist}

¶15

The Asst. Commissioner of Police,, Chevella, R.R. Dist.

¶16

The Station House Officer,, Shankarpally Police Station,^{R.R. Dist.}

¶17

Sultan Murad Khan, S/o. Late Mohd. Karam Ali Khan,^{Aged about 77 yearc,} Occ. Business, Rl/o H-No.16-4-131 , Chanchalguda, Hyderabad^{- 500024,} Telangana State.

¶18

Shams Khatoon, D/o. Late Mohd Karam Ali Khan, Wo.^{Late Mohd Javeed} Khan, Aged about 71^years, Occ. Household,^Rl/o H. No.^16-4-131, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad^{- 5OO024,} Telangana^State.

¶19

Abbas Khan, S/o. Late Mohd. Javeed Khan,^{Aged about. 42 years, Occ.} business, Fi/ o H. No. 16-4-131 , Chanchalguda,^{Hvderabad -500024,} Telangana State

¶20

Afia Khatoon, D/o. Late Mohd. Javeed Khan,^{Aged about. 54 years,} Occ. Household, R/o H. No. 16-4-131, Chanchalguda,^{Hyderabad- 500024'} Telangana State

¶21

1 0. V. Devula Naik, S/o. late Varthya Tarya Naik, Aged^{about. 44 yearc,} Occ. Business, Rl/o. Mokila Village, Shankarpally^{Mandal, R.R. Dist.}

¶22

1 1 . Balu Naik, S/o. late Varthya Tarya Naik. Aged^{about. 46 years, Occ.} Business, Ft/ o. Mokila Village, Shankarpaily Mandal, R.R.^Dist

¶23

Srinu Barthya, S/o. Not known to the Plaintiffs,^{Aged about. 40 years,} Occ. Business, Rl/o. Mokila Village, Shankarpally^{Mandal, R. R. District}

¶24

Praneeta Developers a^partnership firm., Having its^{Regd. office at.} 6-190/1 ,Mokila Village, Shankarpally Mandalr R.R.^{District-SO1203,Rep.by its} Managing Partner Varthya Devula Naik,S/o. Late^{VarthyaTarya Naik,Aged} about. 44^years, Occ. Business,Rl/o. H.^{No. 6-109,MokilaVillage'} Shankarpally Mandal, R.R. District.

¶25

(The Respondent No's. 6 to 13 are not^{necessary parties} to^{this writ} petition)

¶26

...RESPONDENTS

¶27

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 a writ in nature of writ of mandamus to declare ti e action of Respondent No.5 and its staff members in interfering with civil disputes and the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's prope(y as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and also in violation of Article 19,21 ,31 and 300 A of lndian Constitution. Consequently to direct the Respondent No. 5 herein not to interfere into the civil disputes of the petitioners property.

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶29

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 restrain the Respondent No.5 from rnterfering into the civil disputes and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's properties without following a due process of law pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶30

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶31

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 pleased to permit the Petitioner to file the document i.e., 1) Order and Decree dl. 1110412023 in l.A. No. 69 of 2023 in O.S. No. 111 of 2023 passed by the Hon'ble Vll Addl. District and Sessions Judge, R.R. Dist, at L.B. Nagar, as additional material paper.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. MUHAMMAD VEQAR HUSSAIN

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : AGP FOR HOME

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 10 & 13 : SRI DR. CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY

¶35

Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 11 &12: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER

¶36

I I

¶37

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶38

WRIT PETITION No.4442 of 2O23

¶39

ORDER

¶40

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶41

"......to issue a writ in nature of writ of mandamus to declare ti e action of Respondent No 5 and its stalf members in interfering with civil disputes and the peacefut possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and a.lso in violation of Article 19 21 31 and 3OO A of indian Constitution Consequently to direct the Respondent No 5 herein not to interfere into the civil disputes of the petitioners property and to pass......"

¶42

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the agreement holder, absolute owner and possessor of lands in Sy.No.66 admeasuring Ac.00.13 gutnas, Sy.No.76 admeasuring Ac.16.27 guntas, Sy.No.79 admeasuring Ac.l7.O2 guntas, Sy.No.SS admeasuring Ac.2O.16 guntas and Sy.No.87 admeasuring Ac.OO. 16 guntas, total admeasuring Ac.54.34 guntas, situated at Mokila Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, by virtue of agreement of sale dated 2O.O9.2O14 executed by one Rafrkha Khatoon. He submits that when the agreement entered by the petitioner has not been materialized, he has instituted a suit for specihc performance vide O.S.No.25 of 2O2O on the file of Hon1ole XII Additional District Judge at Vikarabad. Thereafter, due to the intervention of elders and well wishers, the petitioner entered into compromise with the said Rafrkha Khatoon wherein the said Rafikha Khatoon received. the entire sale consideration amount and executed a separate re-cqp!

¶43

.2-

¶44

¶45

of the same. While lhc things stood thus, respondent Nos.6 to 13 along with some anti social elem(lnts are interfering with the possession of the petitioner on one pretext or thc other. Hc submits that the petitioner along with Rahkha Khatoon and anothcr instituted a suit for perpetual injunction vide O.S.No.1Il of 2023 ,;n thc file of Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Rarga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. While the said suit is pending for adjudication, respondent Nos.3 to 5, at the instigation of respondent No.6 to 13 are frequently interfering with the possession of the petitioner and also threatening him with rlire consequences. He further submits that respondent Nos.3 to 5 are nol. hiLving any power or authorit5r to interfere into the civil disputes of the pctitioner, in any manner, except by following the due procedure contemplatr:d under law.

¶46

Learned Assistant Governmerrt Pleader for Home submits that the respondents- Police have not receivcd any complaint submitted by eilher of the parties to this writ petition. He subrnits that respondent Nos.3 to S are not interfering into the civil disputes of the petitioner arrd if any complaint comprising of cognizable offence has been received against the petitioner, they will follow the procedurc contcmplatcd under Section 4l-A cr.p.c. and also the guidelines issued l;y the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v.

State of Bihart.

'1zora1s^{scc zz:}

Recording the submissions made by learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, this writ petition is disposed of, directing respondent Nos.3 to 5 not to interfere into the civ disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.6 to 13. However, in the event of any complaint comprising of cognizable offence is being submitted by either of the parties to this writ petition, respondent Nos.3 to 5 are at liberty to follow the due procedure contemprated under Section 4r-A cr.p.c. and also the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Arnesh Kumar's cose (supra). No order as to costs.

¶51

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if aly, shall stand

¶52

closed.

¶53

SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT,BEGTSTRAR //rRUE coPY// (;jb SECTION OFFICER

¶54

To,

¶55

The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶56

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate, R.R. Dist.

¶57

The Dy. Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad Zone, R.R. Dist

¶58

The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Chevella, R.R. Dist.

¶59

The Station House Officer, Shankarpally^police Station, R.R. Dist. 6. One CC to SRl. MUHAMMAD VEQAR HUSSA|N, Advocate.[OpUC]

¶60

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

¶61

One CC SRI DR. CHALLA SRINIVASA REDDY, Advocate.[OpUC] 9. Two CD Copies

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 310612023

ORDER

1 i{e STA} €'
(
'I
d zB Jur?m

¶69

WP.No.4442 ot²⁰²³

¶70

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶71

i2,.
,\ 1
o\o
nI gs

Mohammed Shafeeq Ahmed v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Shafeeq Ahmed 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

Abdul Wahid Ali Vs The State of Telangana

Mahesh Parvani Vs Mr. K.Satyanarayana

Borra Ramesh , Tillu Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Ponagoti Kishan Rao, Vs The state of Telangana

D. Shiv Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

B.Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana