Dismissed

Maddi Saidulu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Apr 2025WP/11231/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought mandamus against police interference with his possession over land subject to a pending civil suit. The State showed he had suppressed that Crime No.39 of 2025 was registered against him and he had received two notices under Section 35(3) BNSS. Holding he approached the court with unclean hands, the court dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Maddi Saidulu Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

Ii rl I i

¶2

31661

¶3

1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE F TELANGANA AT HYDERA BAD (Speciat Original urisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXT NTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AN TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESE T

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JU TICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 11231 0F 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

MADDI SAIDULU, S/o. Sailu, Aged about 5 years, Occ . Agriculturc, Rlo. 21-4BgBl4l2, Gulab Singh Bowli, Chikatimamidi illage, Mungugode lVlandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana.

¶10

.,.PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

2 The Superintendent of Police, Nalgon District c The Dy. Superintendent of Police, Nal onda District. 4 The Station House Officer, P.S. Munu ode Police Station, Nalgonda District.

¶14

Marri Seenaiah, S/o. Lingaiah, Aged 4 years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. H.No.728, Narsingbatla Village, Nalgonda Di rict.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Co stitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action o the Respondents Police authorities herein more particularly the Respondents o.4 in illegally trying to dispossess the petitioner from subject matter propertie , despite^pending of civil suit in O.S. NO. 76 of 2025 on the file of I Addl. Ju ior Civil Judge, at Nalgonda, in an arbitrary, illegal and high handed manner. urther the action of the respondents herein particularly respondents No.4 in in rfering into the petitioner's peaceful possession over the subject property is cha lenged as being bad, arbitrary, illegal

¶17

¶18

and contrary to the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, in the interest of justice.

¶19

IA NO: I OF 2025

¶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 Respondents herein, more particularly respondents No.4 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the properties, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, in the interest of justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G.SHIVA KUMAR

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4 : Gp FOR HOME

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents No.5 :

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

:^r.:'* -R.i:'

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUS CE T.^VINODKUMAR

¶27

Writ Petition 1 23 25

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respo dent Nos.1 to 4, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearin for the^parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at t e admission stage.

¶30

Having regard to the manner of isposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage and the nature of /sⁱ volved, this Couft^{is of the view} that notice to unofficial respondent^No is not necessary for adjudication

¶31

oF the^present Writ Petition.

¶32

Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the^petitionei', in brief,^is that the 4th respondent is trying to dis ossess the^petitioner from^lands which are the subject matter of a s it, vide O.S.No.76 of 2025 and coercing him to^give away the aforesai land in favour of the unofficial respondent, which action of the respo dents it is contended as highly illegal and without any sanction/authori of law

¶33

Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 would s bmit that based on the complaint made by the 5th respondent herein, the uthorities have registered a case, vide Crime No.39 of 2025 on 20.02.202 ,^{whereinthe petitioner has been} arrayed as accused No.1.

yo'rlffirl

I I ]I

t I

\ rf+:ItrJ.

Learned Government Pleader further submits that on therespondents-a uthorities registering the aforesaid crime, the authorities have also issued notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS to the petitioner on 20.02.2025 and thereafter, a second notice was also issued to him on 22.03.2025.

¶40

Learned Government Pleader would further submit that since the authonties have already issued notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS, the authorities have followed due process of law and that the petitioner suppressing the aforesaid facts has filed the present Writ petition and thus seeks for dismissal of the Writ^petition.

¶41

I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

¶42

The petitioner has filed the present Writ petition alleging that the 4th respondent is trying to dispossess him from the lands which are subject matter of a suit pending before the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction. The petitioner however, failed to rnention about the case registered against him videCrime No.39 of 2025 and he being served with two notices dt.20.02.2025 and 22.03.2025 under Section 35(3) of BNSS.

¶43

A copy of the notice dt.20.02.2025 issued to the petitioner would show the petitioner having received the same and also affixing his signature thereon. Similarly, the notice dt.22.03.2025 also bears the signature of the petitioner which tallies with the signature affixed by him in the writ affidavit.

¶44

Since, the petitioner is already erved with notice under Section 35(3) of BNSS in relation to Crime N .39 of 2025, the conduct of the petitioner In approaching this Court by he present Writ Petition feigning ignorance of the aforesaid crime registe d against him, and claiming that the 4th respondent is trying to dlsposse him from the subject land in the considered view of this Court would early amount to the petitioner approaching this Court with unclean h nds by resorting to suppression and as such, he is not entitled for bei g granted with any relief in the present Writ Petition.

¶45

1 I . In view of the above, this Court is oF the view that the present Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with cos

¶46

Accordingly, the Writ Petition rs d missed with costs of Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand only) payable to the Telangana High Court Advocates' Library, within a period of fou (04) weeks from today.

¶47

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, p nding in this writ petition shall

¶48

stand closed.

¶49

¶50

MEMORANDUM COSTS .P.No.11231 of 25

¶51

Rs. Ps

¶52

Cost Quantified by Hon'ble Court^(That the^P titioner^is directed with exemplary costs of^Rs.5,0001 (Ru s Five Thousand Only) to be^paid to the^Telangana igh Court Advocates' Library.

s,000 - 00

TOTAL

s,000 - 00

SD.K.SREERAMA MURTHY DEPUTY/REGISTRAR //TRUE CO il ffi.' SE6UON OFFICER

¶57

To,

¶58

1 One CC to SRI G.SHIVA KUMAR,^Advocat . IoPUC] 2 Two CCs to GP FOR HOME,^{High Courtfo} the State of Telangana. [OUT] 3 The Telangana High Court^{Advocates'Lib} ry 4 Two CD Copies. BSK LS Rfi'

HIGH COURT

DATE D: 1 610412025

ORDER

_za--.-
t
() r<br>Q
2 i [tl3 2025
,.. ri
* ,^^
(,i (: .J,.ya.i.,t,f,/
:.:-- --:. :1. ..-i

¶63

WP.No.11231 of 2025

¶64

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS

¶65

(+
.j rl)

¶66

{

Maddi Saidulu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Maddi Saidulu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaddaguti Naresh Vs The State of Telangana

G. Srikanth Goud Vs The State of Telangana

Vemula Venkateshwar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Ali Azgar Vs The State of Telangana

Birdharaju Sudhakar Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Kurakula Narsimha Rao Vs The State of Telangana