Dismissed

Mr. Avula Krishna Sagar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Jan 2024WP/93/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging police interference in a civil property dispute. Court directed respondents not to interfere with petitioner's civil rights and to furnish charge sheet and Section 41-A notice for cooperation. Petition disposed of without costs.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Station House Officer not to interfere with the civil dispute and to furnish the complaint and Section 41-A notice.

Mr. Avula Krishna Sagar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³²⁹⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 930F 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mr. AVULA KRISHNA SAGAR, C/o. Avula Narayana , Aged about 58 years, 9cc-^{Business, R/o. S -3 -24011, SheshaOri} N#ir.hbad No. 5, Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri, TS - 5O0OZ2

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

I!g_91?!"_^"I^{Telangana,.Represenredby its principat Secretary Home} uepanment, Secretaraat building. Hyderabad, T.S.

¶12

commissioner of Porice, cyb6rab'ao police commissionerate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad

¶13

Additional commissioner of police, cyberabad police commissionerate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad

¶14

Deputy Commissioner of police, Balanagar, Cyberabad police Commissionerate.

¶15

The station House officer, Jagadgirigutta porice station Jagadgirigutta, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of rhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order, writ or order or Direction, particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the action of Respondents particularly Respondent No. 5 in interfering with the civil dispute as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Article 14, 19,21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No. 5 not to interfere with civil dispute of the petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit faled in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No- 5 provide the copies of the complaint and FIR if any filed against the Petitioner

¶19

IANO:2OF2 024

¶20

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 direct the Respondent No. 5 not take any coercive steps against the petitioner pending disposal of this writ petition

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. SAINI ARAVIND

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

¶25

HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE C.V. BHASKARREDDY}

¶26

WRIT PETITI^{ONNo.93 of 2O24}

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This writ petition^{is filed seekingthe following relief:-} "...to issue^{an order,Writ or Direction particularly} one in nature^{of Writ of Mandamus declaringthe} action of^{Respondents particularlyRespondent} No.5 in interfering^{with the civil dispute as illegal'} arbitrary, unjust^{and violationof Articles14} ' 19 ' 2l and 300 A of^{the Constitutionof India and} consequently direct^{the Respondent No'5 not to} interfere with^{civil dispute of the Petitioner and} pass..."

¶29

The case of^{the petitioneris that he is the absolute} owner and^{possessor ofPlot No'4 admeasuring347'9} square yards^{inSy'No.29 Part situated at Shamshiguda} Village, Kukatpally^{Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District'} having^{purchased the same throughregistered sale deed} bearing^{document No.378Oof 2012, dated 21'O6'2O12'It is} the further^{case of the petitionerthat his vendorsand their} predecessor-in-title^{are absolute owrlers of the subject} property having^{acquiredthe samethroughregistered} documents^{and the layout of the subject property was}

¶30

¶31

CVI}R. J wp 93 2024

¶32

regularised uide Proceeding No.LRS/54 1/CR- l4/WEST ZONEIGHMC/2012, dated 26.08.2023. [t is the further case of the petitioner that after purchasing the property, he had obtained a building permission from the Greater Permit Hyderabad Municipal Corporation uide No.l28O42/GHMC/ l53O/2022, dated 08.O2.2022 and proceeded with the construction. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the instance of third parties, respondent No.5 is frequently summoning him to the police station and forcing him to stop the construction on the property purchased by him through valid sale deed.

¶33

Sri B.Mayur Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the police are not having any power or authority to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the subject property and also summon him to the police station directing him to stop the construction when the petitioner is proceeding with the construction strictly in accordance with the sanctioned permission. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the police have forcibly obtained the

CVT}R. J wp 9l .2024

-1

signatures of the petitioner on the notice under Section 4lA of Cr.P.C. and even they have not furnished the copy of the F.l.R. but illegally detaining the petitioner for hours together and their action amounts to violation of the Articles 14, 79 and 2l of the Constitution of India and respondent No.5 is not only liable for departmental enquiry and also for payment of damages towards compensation to the petitioner for his illegal detention that too without supplying copies of the complaint as well as the notice under Section 4l-A of Cr.P.C. as required under law and also the guidelines issued by the Hon ble Apex Court in vanous cases.

¶41

In view of the above submissions, this Court, without expressing any opinion whether the copy of the notice issued under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. was supplied to the petitioner or his signatures have been taken forcibly, the ends of justice would be met if respondent No.S is directed not to interfere with the civil rights of the petitioner in any manner. Respondent No.S is further directed to furnish copy of the complaint, if any submitted against him and

=ffir r . ':i4

CV8It. J wp 9J 202{

issue notices duly specifying date and time so as to enable the petitioner to cooperate with the investigating agency and to defend the action initiated against him, if the presence of the petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation in any case.

¶46

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is

¶47

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶48

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if

¶49

any, shall stand closed.

¶50

SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL //rRUE coPY/' ASSISTANT FEGISTRAR

¶51

va SECTION OFFICER

¶52

To,

¶53

The Principal Secretary Home Depa(ment, Secretariat building, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶54

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad

¶55

The Additional Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, Gachibowli, Hyderabad

¶56

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Balanagar, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate.

¶57

The Station House Officer, Jagadgirigutta Police Station Jagadgirigutta, Hyderabad.

¶58

One CC to SRl. SAINI ARAVIND Advocate IOPUC]

¶59

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

¶60

Two CD Copies BM

HIGH COURT

DATED:0310112024

ORDER

S.IATE
{
9
olo 21 Jr\ $2[ C)
*
t ct
L) t: srr.;I

¶66

WP.No.93 ot 2024

¶67

DISPOSING OF^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

Mr. Avula Krishna Sagar v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Avula Krishna Sagar 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

Smt.S.K.Afroz Begum, Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Jaffar Sharif Vs The State of Telangana

M/S. Ashoka Travels Vs The Board of Control for Cricket in India

Toddy Tappers Co- Operative Society Vs The State of Telangana

Rachamalla Ashok Vs The State of Telangana

Amer Khan, Vs The State of Telangana