Disposed

Devasoth Hanuma, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC22 Oct 2024WP/29135/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging alleged arbitrary interference by police in a civil land dispute between the petitioner and a private respondent, the High Court disposed of the matter. The court noted that the Station House Officer submitted written instructions stating no such interference occurred.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as no further orders were required based on the respondent's submission that no interference occurred.

Devasoth Hanuma, Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³¹⁸³ ]

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 29135 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Devasoth Hanuma, Sio. Devasoth Balya Aged about 65 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o.Bodakonda Thanda Village, Mahchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy district.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Police Commissionerate, Rachakonda, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, lbrahimpatnam Mandal, Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

The Station House Officer, Manchal Police Station, Rachakonda Police Commissionerate, Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy District

¶16

Dandu Krishana Swamy, S/o. Kistaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rio. Bodakonda Village, Manchal Mandasl, Ranga Reddy District

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.5 in interfer.ing into the peaceful life and liberty of the Petitioner and also interfering into the civil dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent no.6 and calling the petitioner to the police station and detaining him in the police station and threatening the petitioner to hand over the land to an extent of Ac.4-20 grts. in sy.no.,g & 10, which is situated at Bodakonda Revenue village, Manchal lr/landal, Ranga Reddy District is illegal and arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 15,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and also violative of provisions of Natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent N0.5 to not to interfere into the life and

¶19

Iiberty of the petitioner and not to call him to the police station and not to detain him in the police station, and not to threaten him to hand over the physical possession to the respondent no.6.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may oe pLased to direct the Respondent No 5 to not to interfere into the life ani tioerty Lr ftre petitioner and not to call him to the police station and not to detain nim in tne police station, and not to threaten him to hand over the physical possession to the respondent no.6 to an extent of Ac.4-20 gts. in sy.no.g a'to, wrricn is situated at Bodakonda Revenue village shivar, Manchal iMandal, nanga ieooy District and pending disposal of the above Writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to S: SRI G. ANIKETH REDDY,

¶24

ASST. GP FOR HOME

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.6: - - - -

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

\ \

t I

THE^{HONOURABLESRI JUSTICE B' VIJAYSEN REDDY} wRIT^{PETITIO N No.29l 3soF2024}

¶31

oRD^ER: (oRAL)

¶32

This^{writ petitionis filed by the petitionerseekingto declare} the action^{of respondentNo'5 in interferingwith his personal life'} libefty^{and also interferingin the civil disputesbetween the} petitioner^{and respondent No'6; calting him and detaining him in} the Police^{Station and threateninghim to hand over the land} admeasuring^{Acs'4-20 guntas in Survey Nos'9and 10 situatedat} Bodakunda^{Village, Manchal Mandat' RangaReddy District'as} being^{illegaland arbitrary'}

¶33

Heard Mr.^{Rapolu Bhaskar'leamed counselfor the} and Mr.^{G. Aniketh Reddy, leamed Assistant} petitioner Govemment^{Pleader for Home'}

¶34

Leamed^{Assistant GovemmentPleaderfor Home'having} received^{written instructions dated l8'10'2024 from the Inspector} of Police,^{Manchal Police Station' submitted thatrespondentNo'6} neither^{approachedrespondent No'5 - the Station HouseOfhcer'} Manchal^{Police Station, nor lo<lged any complaintagainstthe}

¶35

¶36

petitioner. It is turther stated that respondent No.5 neither called the petitioner to the Police Station, interfered with his personal life and liberty nor in the civil disputes between the^petitioner and respondent No.6 and did not threaten the petitioner to hand over the subject land to respondent No.6.

¶37

A copy of written instructions is served on leamed counsel for the petitioner.

¶38

In view of the categorical statement made by respondent No.5 - the Station House Officer, Manchal Police Station, in the written instructions that he has not interfered with his personal life, Iiberty and in the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.6, no further orders are required to be passed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed o[. There shatt be no order as to costs.

¶39

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

¶40

pending in the writ petition stand closed.

¶41

To,

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

SD/- T. TIRUMATA DEVI ASSISTANT RECIISTRAR .j<\ ')

¶44

SECTION OFFICER

¶45

1 I!9-]l1glpfl 99gut*,^{Home Department,The State of Tetansana,} Secretanat Buttding, secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶46

2 The Director Geneial of police, Telhngana State, Hvderabad. 3 The.Commissioner of^police, Rachak6nda Fof icd Cl,mmissionerate, Rachakonda, Hyderabad.

¶47

4 The Assistant commissioner of porice, rbrahimpatnam Mandar, Rachakonda, Ranga Reddy District.

¶48

5 The station House officer, Manchar porice station, Rachakonda porice Commissionerate, Racha(onoi,-nlngi R6o,i;'tji"iri;i

¶49

6 One CC to SRt RAPOLU BHASKAR,lOr"cat'eiOCUtl 7 Two CCs to Gp FOR HOME, High Court for thL'State of tutangana. [OUT]

¶50

b8 Two CD Copies BN GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:2 211012024

---:"''.
z'.:1t',1', \ r.1
,/L,:
l,i
(:
i'? lt -: 26 ltT 1Mt I,
; c /

¶55

ORDER

¶56

WP.No.29135 of 2024

¶57

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS udW

Devasoth Hanuma, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devasoth Hanuma, 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

Kommana Tejaswi Vs Union of India

Ms. Shalini Sood Awasthi Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Sri Saidurga Constructions Vs Mr. Uppalapati Srihari Rao

Indus Towers Limited Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammad Flamed Hussain Vs The State of Telangana

Guguloth Bujji Vs The State of Telangana