Disposed

Mohammed Jaffer v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Jun 2024WP/13193/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition filed to declare the inaction of police authorities illegal. The court held that police protection cannot be provided absent an order for police aid from the civil court, directing the petitioner to approach the civil court for protection before approaching the SHO.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file application in EP.No.11 of 2023 seeking police protection before approaching the SHO with an order.

Mohammed Jaffer Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 13193 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mohammed Jaffer, S/o Mohammed Nizam Uddin Aged about 43^years, Occ Business, Rl/o H. No.2- 10, Malkaram Village, Shamshabad Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy} District, Telangana State

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

2- The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate

¶13

3- The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad.^Cyberabad Commissionerate

¶14

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad.^Cyberabad Commissionerate

¶15

The Circle lnspector of Police, Shamshabad Police Station, Shamshabad. Cyberabad Commissionerate

¶16

Rallabandi Harika, Wo Rallabandi Laxman, Aged about^{48 years,Occ} Housewife, R/o H. No. 2- 12, Botiguda Village, Ramanujapur^{Grampanchayat} Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶17

Rallabandi Laxman, S/o. not known to the Petitioner, Aged about^{52 years,} Occ Housewife, Fi/o H. No. 2- 12, Botiguda^{Village, Ramanujapur} Grampanchayat Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga^{Reddy District}

¶18

-..RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia prayrng that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue any Writ, order or direction more^particularly one ln the^{nature of} WRIT OF IMANDAMUS declaring the action^{of the RespondentsNo. 2 to 5 not} Iaking any action against the Respondent No.^{6 and 7 for creating nuisance over} the Petitioners property Agricultural Land in^{Survey No. 188, admeasuring Acres}

¶20

i I I ! t ! I i . i

¶21

1- 22 Guntas, situated at Ramaniapur^{Village and Grampanchayalh,Shamshabad} Mandal, Ranga Reddy^{District,and not providing Police pr'ltectionto the} Petitioner against the Respondents^{No. 6 and 7, inspite of Judgrrrent andDecree} dated 21- 10- 2022^passed in OS.^{No. 216 of 2021as well as Docket Order 01-} 04- 2024^passed in EP.^{No. 11} of^{2023by the Honble I AdditionalJunior Civil} Judge CUM Xll Additional^{lvletropolitanMagistrate,Ranga Rr:ddyDistrict at} Rajendranagar, as^{illegal, arbitrary and violation principlesof na':uraljustice and} consequently direct^{the Respondents No. 2 to 5 to provide Police} lcrotection^{to the} Petitioner in respecl of^{Petitioners Property Agricultural Landin {iurvey No. 188,} admeasuring Acres 1- 22^{Guntas, situated} at^{RamanjaptrrVillageand} Grampanchayath, Shamshabad Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District, in viewof} Judgment and Decree dated 21- 10- 2022^{passed in OS. No. 216 of 2021as well} as Docket Order 01- 04- 2024^{passed in EP. No. 11 of 2023 by the HonbleI} Additional Junior Civil Judge CUtt/ Xll Additional^{Metropolitanlvlagistrate,Ranga} Reddy District at Raiendranagar, by considering the^{representationdated} 18-04- 2024.

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶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 No. 2 to 5 to^provide Police^{protection to the Petitionerin} respect of Pelilioners Property Agricultural Land in Survey No. 1ti8, admeasuring Acres 1- 22 Guntas, situated at Ramanjapur Village and Grampanchayath, Shamshabad [/andal, Ranga Reddy District,^{in vi6w} of^{Judgmentand Decree} dated 21- 10- 2022^passed in OS. No. 216 ot^{2021 as well as Docket Order 01-} 04- 2024^passed in EP. No. 11 of 2O23 by the^{Honble I AdditionalJunior Ctvil} Judge CUIi/ Xll Additional lvletropolitan Magitrate, Ranga^{Rerddy Districtat} Rajendranagar, by considering the representation dated 18-^{04- 2l)24.}

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VIKHAR AHMED Counsel for the Respondents No.1tos : ASST.^{GP FOR} HOME -- Counsel for the Respondents No.6&7 : The Court made the following: ORDER

I i

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION 0.13193 oI 2024

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

The writ petition is filed to declare the inaction of the respondents No.2 to 5 on the complaint of the petitioner against the respondents No.6 and 7 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.1.22 guntas situated in Sy.No.188, Ramanjapur Village and Grampanchayat. Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and not providing police protection to the petitioner in spite of judgment and decree dated 21.10.2022 passed in O.S.No.216 of 2021 as welt as Docket Order dated OL.O4.2O24 passed in EP.No.11 of 2023 by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶31

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the basis of the written instructions, submitted that the complaint of the petitioner dated 18.04.2024 was acted upon and FIR.No.300 of 2024 was registered with the Shamshabad Police Station for the offences under Sections 341,29O read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. So far as police protection is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioner was not granted any order of police aid by the civil Court, as such, police protection cannot be provrded to the petitioner.

¶32

¶33

Recording the aforesaid submissions, the writ petition is disposed of. The petitioner is given liberty to file an app ication in EP.No.11 of 2O23 seeking police protection. As and when police protection order is granted, the petitioner may approach the Station House Officer, Shamshabad, who shall implement the Court order, if any, passed for grant of police protection, in accordance with law.

¶34

The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand

¶35

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

SD/.MOHD.^ISMAIL ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \

¶37

SECTION^OFFICER

¶38

To, 1. The Principal^{Secretary, Home Department'Secretariat' State of Telangana'} Hvderabad

¶39

1. rtEtIH,iit.ioner^{of Police,Cvberabad Commiss'ronerate} .) Shamshaba'l'^Cyberabad The Deputy^{commisslo#f "- ff";;li""'}

¶40

1. ?f,Irnff!:i,"#"cornr,..,on"l.^{of Police, shamshabad'cvberabad} 5. ?frr6i:;":T:iEcto,^{or Police, Shamshabad Policestatiorr'shamshabad'} Cvberabad^{Commissionerate}

¶41

r). 6i["bCiJ sni^{vtrHnnAHtvlED. Advocate[oP1lc]} 7. Two ccs to^{Gp FORUOrvri.'-nlgn c.;;l;; th; Statle of Telangana.[oUT]} 8. Two CD^CoPies. BSK GJP Pt-

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110612024

ORDER

WP.No.13193 of 2024

I
$f- SI4 l'{:
t
e (v
3 j) 19 JUt zul az
t .<br>*
liSr.i., v--.i z1,

¶47

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶48

.rdna \C G^+\N

Mohammed Jaffer v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Jaffer 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

Gudumani Rakesh Vs The State of Telangana

Gouru Venkateshwarlu Vs The State of Telangana

Guduru Balaji Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Sahiti Infratec Ventures India Private Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Kondala Sai Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Dandugula Mohan Vs The State of Telangana