M/s.Kavuri Hills Developers Private Limited Vs The Station House Officer

M/s.Kavuri^{Hills Developers Private Limited,} Bep.bV^{its ExecutiveDirector} iarr;i'R;ri^{"Kr."i-sio.r-it"vent<at Rao,Rgeo.-aoout59 vears' occ} ijliil".l,"nvo.itoi^{No.izo,Kavuri Hills, Madhapur, Hvderabad'}

¶10

..PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The Station House^{Officer, Maheswaram Police Station Rachakonda} Commissionarate,^{RangaReddy District'}

¶13

2 The Commissioner^{of Police, Rachakonda Commissionarate' RangaReddy} District.

¶14

3 The State of^{Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Home Department} Secretariat,^HYderabad.

¶15

4 M/s.Standard^{Breeders Private Limited,Rep by its Director Mr'MohdSoheb} 5ii.r"j[r'bi.rr,r,q-r'rror<""t,^{Ag.J abJ,ia2ve'ars,occ Business' R/o H No 16-} 1 1-16/N/69,^{Prashanth Nagar, Malakpet' Hyderaoao'}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under^{A(icle 226 of the Constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybepleased i;l;;r; ,^{writ, order or diiection more particularly one in the nature of writ of} Mandamus to^{declaretne action of the RespondentNo.tin interferingwith the civil} li.prG^{p".ol"gbetweenthe petitionerand'the RespondentNo.4 in respectof the} land extent -M"t^{Ac.12-23 gts iituatedin Sy'Nos'67/P and 68/P of BaghMankhal} 1/andal, Ranga^{Reddy District whichis a suit schedule} vif irg., ;;;;ily^i;b"S ".waram^{.ioia3t2o2aon the fite of the AdditionatSenior Civil Judse,Ranga} h"Jov-birt|.i"t^{at lbrahimpatnam without following due process of lawa-s arbitrary,} iri"s"i ;";""J;urisdiction^{and violation of Article 14' 21 and 300-Aof} -the c"i"iitrii"i,^{of tndiaand conseqrenfly direct the Respondent No.1.,notto-interfere} *it, tii" Lur dispute^{pendingbetweenthe petitioner.companyandthe Respondent} i.ii.+'i" *rpJft^{tne tand Jxtent Ac.12-23gts situatedin sy.Nos.67/Pand 6B/P of} ;;s; M;;lih"l-viir"g",^{MaheswaramMandal, Ranga Reddy Districtwhich is a suit} ;;";;;i; ;;perty^{in o.S.No.143t2024 on the file of the Additional Senior civil}

¶18

',/

¶19

,/

¶20

Judge, Ranga Reddy^{Districtat lbrahimpatnam withoutfollowing due process of} law in the interest of iustice

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶22

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in supportof the petition,the High courtmay be pleased to direct} the Respondent^{No.1 not to interfere with the civil disputepending betweenthe} i"tition"1. Company^{and the Respondent No.4 in respectof the land extent Ac.12-} 23 gts situatedⁱⁿ -Sy.Nos.67/P and 68/P of Bagh Mankhal Village, Maheswaram r,au,iout, Ranga ieddy^{Districtwhich is asuit schedule propertyin} O-S.trto.t+SIZO)4^{on the file of the AdditionalSenior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy} District at lbrahimpatnam^{without following due processof law pendingdisposal of} the Writ Petition^{in the interest of justice.}

¶23

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRl.AJAY KUMAR KULKARNI}

¶24

Counsel for the^{Respondent Nos.1to 3: GPFOR HOME}

¶25

Counsel for the^{Respondent NO.4: ---}

¶26

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶27

r@

¶28

IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶29

WRIT PETITION No.15873 of 2025

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶32

Govemment Pleader' 1'or Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 3, and perused the record. With the consent of the leamed counsel appearing for the respective parlies, the Writ Petition is taken up lbr hearing and disposal at adrrissiorr stage.

¶33

Having legald to the nature of /rs involved and the manner of disposal of thc Writ Petition at the admission stage, this Court is of the view that notice to Lrnofficial respondent is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

¶34

-['he casc of the petitioner in brief is that while there exists civil disputes betrveen the petitioner and 4'h respondent in relation to imrnoveable property which are subject matter of civil suit vide O.S.No. 14312024 pendirrg on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at lbrahirnpatnam, the I't respondent^is interftring in the civil disputes and is coercing the petitioner to settle the sarne with the 4rh respondent, which action of the respondent

¶35

authorities it^is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary. /, {

¶36

2

¶37

Per contra, leamed Government Pleader lbr I lorne appealing on behalf of re spondent Nos.l to 3 while denying the \ rit averments, would submit tl-rat as ol date, r]o case is pending against the petitioner on the file ol l" r'espondent nor anl cornplaint has becrt received lbr the authorities to initiate any action.

¶38

Leamed Govcrnrncnt Pleader rvould lurther subnrit that since no complaint is lodged against the pctitioncr eirhcr by the 4'h respondent or anlrone, therc is no nccessity rvalranting interfelencc by the 1't respondent authoritics as alleged in the present Writ Petition.

¶39

The aforesaid sublnission made by the leamccl Govemment Pleader for Llorne is placed ort record.

¶40

Having regald to the albresaid submissions, and taking note of the fact that as ol'date there is no cornplaint or case against the petitioner, this CoLrrt is of the view that the rcspondent authorities are to be directed not to involve themselves in the civil disputes and in the event of any complaint being todged, the ar.rthorities are directed to follow due process ol lar,".

¶41