Disposed

Sri. Kurva Anjaneyulu v. The State of Telanagana

Telangana HC13 Jun 2025WP/15918/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged police interference in a civil land dispute subject to an injunction in O.S.No.50/2024. The State reported registration of Cr.No.82/2025 under BNS based on a third party's complaint. The Court directed police to investigate strictly according to law without involving themselves in the civil dispute and disposed of the writ petition without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri. Kurva Anjaneyulu Vs The State of Telanagana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTrcE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 15918 0F 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Agriculture, R/o. Sri. Kurva fljaLeyulu, Vehula ViHage, S/o. Late Musapet Sayanna. l,lanaat]Mihad'bgr; Aged about 60 years, D;;"i. Occ 2 9rl. Kurva_Kappeta Kalav.athi, Wio. Anjaneyulu Aged about 53 years, Occ Agricutture R/o. Vemura Vi[age, Musapet'Maridar, Hrirraoooonagarbiiirrtt]""

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

The State of Telanaoa.na, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, HyderabEd

¶12

The Superintend of Police, District Mahabubnagar

¶13

The Divisional Superindent of police, District Mahabubnagar

¶14

The Circle lnspector of police, Boothpur, Mahabubnagar District.

¶15

The Station House Officer of police, Moosapet, Mahabubnagar District.

¶16

Kotakadhira Venkateshwarlu, S/o. chinna Venkanna. Aoed about 48 veers Qcc^{AgricultureR/o. Vemula Viilage,MusapetH,finOil,} fVinrO".Oliii'i District.

¶17

V., Raghava E#OV, 9{o Bucha. Reddy Aged about 47 years, Occ Agriculture Rl/o. Vemula Village, Musapet Mandal; Ma;haboobnagarbistrict.

¶18

Maddina Hasina Begum,._ Wio. Ivld. Abdul Kateem, Aged tr,4a;or, Occ Housewife R/o. Musaftt Village and nlanOii rrrraniOooonagjrDtstrici.^{' ---}

¶19

Thahera . _B..ggum, W9 Mohd Khaja, Aged Major. Occ Housewife RJo. lVusapet Village and Mandal, Mahabciobna{ar District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction, more pa(icularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, decraring the action of the Respondents 2 to 5

¶22

i I

¶23

not to interfere with the civil dispute and personal liberty between the petitioners and respondent 6 to 9 in the respect of land Sy. No 316 an extent of Ac. 1- 00 gts and Sy. No. 316 /1 an extent of Ac. OO- 39 gts situtated at Vemula Village, Musapet Revenue Mandal, Mahabubngar District, is illegal, arbitrary, and volation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of lndia and without the jurisdiction and consequently direct the respc,ndents not to interfere with the civil disputes and personal liberty between the petitioners and the respondents No 6 to 9 and in the respect of above said lands.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

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 3 to 5, not to interfere with the civil disputes and the personal liberty between the petitioners and the respondents 6 to 9, and in the respect of the land Sy. No 3'16 an extent of Ac. 1- 00 gts and Sy. No. 316 /1 an extent of Ac 00- 39 gts situtated at Vemula Village, Musapet Revenue Handal, Mahabubngar District Pending disposal of the main mini petition and pass

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SHANKARAIAH GOBBURU

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 5: GP FOR HOME

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.15918 of 2O25

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Heard leamed counsel for the petitioner and learned Govemment Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of^respondent Nos. I to 5, and perused the record. With the consent of^{the leamed} counsel appearing for the respective parties, the^{Writ Petition is taken} tup fbr hearing and disposal at admission stage

¶33

). I laving regard to the nature of /ls involved and^{the manner} ol disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage,^{this Courtis of the} vie,u, that notice to unofficial respondents is not necessary^lor adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

¶34

l. fhe case of the petitioners in brief is that^{respondentNos.2 to 5} arc intert'ering with the civil disputes and also^{with thc pcrsonal[if-c} and liberty of the petitioners without therebeing^{any case registered} against the petitioners and also involving themselves^{in civil disputes} u hich are subject matter of suit vide O.S.No.50/2024^rvliereinan order ol' in-iunction has been granted in favour of the^petitioners by^the cornpetent Court of civil^jurisdiction on 06-02-2024, extended till

¶35

¶36

lO-07-2025, which action of the respondent^{authoritLes it is contended} as itlegal, arbitrary and^without any authority^{and sanctionof law.}

¶37

Per contra, leamed Govemment Pleader for Home^appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 5 would submir.^{that though, the} unofficial respondents did not approach the respondent^{authoritiesand} lodge any cornplaint against the petitioner herein, one^{Mr.Moin Pasha} had approached the lespondent authorities^{and lodged complainton} O9-96-/025 and based on the aloresaid cornplaint, the^{authoritieshave} registered a case vide Cr.No.82/2025 under Section^{329(3) and32a@)} of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023^(BNS).

¶38

Loarned^(iovcrnrnent Plcader would further^r;ubmit that^{on the} aforesaicl clinrc bein-q^r-c-gisteled on^{the file of the :ith respondent,the} petitioners rvclc called to the Police Station for the^purposeof investig;rtion into thc atbresaid crime and that^{the respondent} authorities ale not interf'eriug in the civil^{disputes between the} petitioners and unofficial respondents in the present^Writ Petition.

¶39

Lt:arnetl^(lor emLneuL Pleader would firrther submit^{that the} respond<:nt authorities crccpt investigating into the^{aforesaid crime}

¶40

¶41

registered basing on the complaint made 5y Mr.Moin Pasha, are not interfering in the civil disputes.

¶42

The aforesaid statement made by the leamed Govemment Pleader fbr Home is taken on record.

¶43

Having regard to the submissions made as above, and taking note of the tact that a case is registered against the petitioners vide Cr.No.82/2025, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities are to be directed to conduct investigation into the alorcsaid crime strictly in accordance with law without involving thcmselvcs in the civil disputes between the petitioners and unofficial respondents, which subject matter of suit O.S.No.50/2024.

¶44

Subject to above observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed ol. No costs.

¶45

Consccluently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall

¶46

stand c losed

¶47

SD/-N. SRIHARI PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

The Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. State of Telangana-

¶50

The Superintend of Police, District Mahabubnagar

¶51

3 The Divisicnal Superindent of Police, District Mahabubnagar

¶52

The Circle lnspector of Police, Boothpur, Mahabubnagar District.

¶53

The Station House Officer of Police, tVloosapet, Mahabubnagar District.

--7 I

1 t

One^{CC to SRI SHANKARAIAH GOBBURU' Advocate IOPUCI} 7 Two CCs to^{GP FOR HOME' High Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} HYderabad [OUTI

S.Z/Jwo^CDCoPies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310612025

ORDER

WP.No.15918 of 2025

,,'
-. t,
1i sEP M
'..,1
oill; ' . r-(.,-,''1 t,y'

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

lZ
4 .'g
4,', Zlg

Sri. Kurva Anjaneyulu v. The State of Telanagana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri. Kurva Anjaneyulu v. The State of Telanagana

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

Smt. G. Vasantha Reddy@ G. Vasantha Vs The State of Telangana

A Rajinikanth Vs The State of Telangana

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

Bingannapally Bhagya Vs T.Satyanarayana

Mohd.Ibrahim (Since died) his L.Rs Vs Jani Begum

Sri Jalasutram Tilak Vs Sri Jagadamba Transformers