Disposed

Pasham Madhusudhan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC6 Feb 2024WP/3026/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus against police authorities for alleged inaction in providing protection regarding disputed agricultural land. The Court directed the petitioner to approach the competent civil court as an alternative remedy.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the competent civil court.

Pasham Madhusudhan Reddy Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

t^32e6I

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3026 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

Pasham Madhusudhan Reddy, S/o Late P. Ranga Reddy Aged about 66 years, business, Resident of Vill No. 56, Aparna Elixir, Near ORR, Khajaguda, Chitrapuri Colony, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

ANO

¶12

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

¶13

2 The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Rachakonda District.

¶14

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Circle lnspector, Nagole Police Station, Nagole, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

The Station House Officer, Nagole Police Station, Nagole, Ranga Reddy District.

¶18

Tax Recovery Offioer- 4, Pr. ClT, Hyderabad.

¶19

Mohd. Afzal Moinuddin, S/o Mohd. Murrad^Aged about 70^{years, non-,\orking} H.No. 1 6-1 1 -21 2y1 2, Mosarambagh, Hyderabad.

¶20

Yakub Shajiuddin Tusi, S/o Mohd. Moinuddin^Aged about 68^{years, rrcn-} working H.No.16-1 1-212112, Mosarambagh, Hyderabad.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit fibd therewith, the High Court^maybe pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring inaction of o{ticial^{respondents to take action pursuantto my} representation dated 06-1 1-2023 sent through^{Reg. Post} with Ack.^{Due being} illegal and arbitrary and consequently^{direct respondentsto take action with} regard lo my representation dated 06-11-2023^{sent through Reg. Post with Ack.} Due.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶24

Petition under Section^'151 CPC praying that in the circumst€nces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct respondents to take dispose of my representation dated 06-1 1-2023 sent through Reg. Post with Ack. Due pending disposal of writ petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI R.R. KALYAN

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 6: ASST. GP FOR HOME

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: SRI J.V. PRASAD, SC FOR INCOME TAX

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.8 & 9: - - - -

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JT'STICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.3O26 OF 2o.24

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

This writ petition is filed seeking following reliei

¶34

" .. . .to issue a Wrtt of Mandamus or any other appropriate utit order or direction declaring inaction of offtcial respondents to toke action putsuant to mg representation dated O6. 1 1.2023 sent through Registered Post uith Acknouledgment Due being illegal and arbitrary and ansequentlg direct respondents to take action utith regard to mA representation doted 06.11.2023 sent ttvough Registered Post toith Acknoule dg ment Due... "

¶35

It is the case of the peti[ioner that he is the owrrer and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.18-06 guntas in Sy.Nos.118, 119 and 12O situated at Tattiannaram Village, having purchased the same through Registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.4673 of 2005, d,ated, 2O.O9.2005. It is the further case of the petitioner that originally the said land was belonged to one Nawab Sooriyar Jang and upon his demise, the said land has fallen to share to the vendors of the petitioner in accordance to decree passed in O.S.No.887 of 7987 and as per Comp.No.2994 of 2OOl in CCCA No.30 of 1993, dated 15.O2.2OO1. While things stood thus, when respondent Nos.8 and 9 are interfering with the peaceful possession of the petitioner and causing inconvenience, he was constrained to

¶36

¶37

lodge a complaint, dated 1g.1O.2O23 and acting on the said complaint, the respondents-porice have registered a case in Crime No.234 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 42O of IpC and the same is pending for investigation. It is the further case of the petitioner that even after registration of crime, when respondent Nos.g and 9 are criminally trespassing into his land and interfering with his peaceful possession and damaging the propert5r by disturbing the boundar5r stones, he lodged a complaint, d,ated, 06.11.2024 before respondent No.6 requesting to provide police protection for fencing agricultural land admeasuring Acs.lg_06 guntas in Sy.Nos.118, 119 and 12O situated at Tatriannaram Village, but no action was taken by the respondents_police till date.

¶38

Learned Assistalt Government pleader for Home submits that acting on the complaint, dated lg.LO.2023 submitted by the petitioner, tl're respondents_police have registered a case in Crime No.234 of 2023 arrd the same is pending for investigation. Since there are disputes with regard to identihcation artd loca-lization of the said lands, the petitioner has to approach competent civil Court and in the absence of injunction being granted :in favour of the pelitioner, the respondents_police are

¶39

¶40

not having any power or authority to provide police protection/police aid to the petitioner.

¶41

In view of the said submissions, since there is alternative and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner to file application before the competent Court, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter and. the inter se rights of the parties, deems it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition gralting liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application before the competent civil Court.

¶42

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶43

Miscellaneous^petitions, if any, pending in this writ

¶44

petition shall stand closed.

¶45

SD/-K. SREERAMA MURTHY ASSISTANT REGI$TRAR tv I sEcTroN urHCeR

¶46

//TRUE COPY//

¶47

To, 1. The Principal.secretary, Home Department, The State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶48

1. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Rachakonda District.

¶49

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, L.B. Naoar, Hvderabad.

¶50

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, L.B. t{=aqir. i{vderabad.

¶51

The Circle lnspector, Nagole Police Sfation, Nigolb, Ranga Reddy Dishict

¶52

Ihe^{Station House Officer, Nagole Police Station, Nagole;Rangaheddy} District.

¶53

Tax Recovery Officer- 4, Pr. ClT, Hyderabad.

¶54

One CC to SRI R.R. KALYAN, Advocate [OPUCI

¶55

one cc ro sRt J.v. PRASAD, SC FOR TNCOME TAXIOPUCI 10. fwo QQs-to cP FOR HOME, High Court for rhe State df Tetarigana. IOUI 11.Two CD Copies BN BS q}-

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610212024

ORDER

WP.No.3026 of 2024

k\ s TA rG
(
f, e
o 0 I rEB 202[ o
-L

9Espa-rcs 90

¶63

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Pasham Madhusudhan Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pasham Madhusudhan Reddy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanakam Kavyasree Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Abid Vs The State Of Telangana

Mohd. Abdul Faheem Vs The State of Telangana

M. Rajeshwar Rao Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Mohammed Sami Khan Vs The State of Telangana

Gulam Aijaz Vs The State of Telangana