Disposed

Narlengula Chandraiah v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Jul 2025WP/20502/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged police were supporting private respondents occupying his agricultural land and summoning him to the station despite a representation. Government Pleader stated a complaint was enquired into and closed as civil in nature. Court directed police not to interfere with petitioner's life, liberty or civil disputes except in accordance with law, and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to police not to interfere with petitioner's life, liberty and civil disputes except per law; no costs.

Narlengula Chandraiah Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

. [ 31661

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR.THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original .lurisaiction)

¶3

THURSDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY Fi'E^-_'

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 20502 0 F 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

H,Tl"xf.'J?"""&?:i{if lii,?i?,,U8ilill,?,i,afi l%;no","x"S[1;,3* Agriculture,

¶9

AND

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

'1. 5;;;.;;;6 The State of Telanoana^{,Hffi:;d* *p. by its principat Secretary to Home Department,}

¶12

The Commissioner of police, Warangal Commissionarate, Warangal_

¶13

t Lffi l#il:i!::fr orPolice, rharisoppula Police station, rharisoppura (V)

¶14

The Assistant Sub-lnsor rharisoppura tut rro (M1it3l3l5"tf B,;I"igoppula Police station,

¶15

Kadem Sarawa. W/o pochaiah, ,agi,^{g0 years, Occ . Agriculture,} Rt/o.

¶16

Regonda, Near Fochamm, t"mpr"i br,igui,irritipu rri (M), Karimnagar Dist.

¶17

Jallika Raiawa. W/o Rajaiah, a99, 1g years, Occ . Agriculture, Ri/o. H.No. 4-87l8, Katkoor (V), Akkannapeitnltoil, Sii,liri"i"o].t.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Articre 226 0f rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the afridavii rir"i'irr"]"*itn, the High court may be pleased to issue writ' order l oroers moie-;r;;;;;;;iv one in the nature of writ of mandamus decraring the action or *re zni resion-dent in not taking any action against the 3rd and 4th respondents in givin! "r-ipo,irno encouraging 5th and 6th respondents to occuov the AgriculturL friJljrurrrring Ac. 3-32 guntas in sv'No"l lsrcr t2o2s situateo "t-noorrn"gr;,i ti,r] iirrigoppura Mandar, Jansaon Pj-'i:-t 'lro'19 of petitioner's ,."pr".untrfion ,"'# to *ru 2ndrespondent is iresar, rmproper, nutt and void and.conseguen.y direct the 2il ,"rp;;;;;il'jil[i;" 3rd and 4th respondents not to interfere'inio ftre- civir cases pending in the court and not to call and summon the petitioner tn" pof i"I''dt"tion for any purpose

¶20

lA NO:^{1oF 2025}

¶21

petition under section^{1 5r cpc prayingthat in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit^{filed in support''"tif.l" p'",'t'J^,ne"HighCourtmay be pleased to direct} the 2nd^{respondent to oir.""ltt'""alo"u"J+il.r i"tp"ndent not to call or summonthe} petitiond-1 to^{the Policestaiiontor anyother purpose pendingthe Court cases}

¶22

Counsel^{for the Petitioner: SRI' M YESHWANTH KUMAR}

¶23

Counsel^{for the RespondentNos'1 to 4: GP FOR HOME}

¶24

Counsel^{forthe RespondentNos'5&6:--}

¶25

The Court^{made the following:ORDER}

¶26

,}j il

¶27

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶28

W.P.No. 20so2 of 2o25

¶29

ORDE R:

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3, and with their consent, the Writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

¶31

Having regard to the manner of disposal of the writ petition and the nature of /ls invorved, this court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.4 & 5 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ petition.

¶32

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that though he had approached the 2"d respondent and submitted a representation, dt.Ol.O7.2O2S, seeking for initiation of action against the respondent Nos.3 & 4 herein for supporting the respondent Nos.5 & 6, no action has been taken thereon and on the other hand, the respondent Nos.3 & 4 are summoning the petitioner to the 3.a respondent-police station, thereby interfering with the petitioner,s life and liberty, which action of the respondents it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrar5r and in violation of fundamental rights.

¶33

¶34

Per contra,learned^{Government Plead'er appearing on behalf} of official^{respondentswhile denying the writ averments would} submit^{that the 5th respondent herein had approachedthe 3'd} respondent-authority^{and submitted a} representation' dt.24 .06.2025;^{and that the respondents'authoritieson receiving} the aforesaid^{complaint,madea GD entry and took up preliminar5r} enquiry^{to verify the correctness cr otherwiseof the contents of} the comPlaint'

¶35

Learned^{Government Pleader would submit thatthe} respondents-authorities^{after causing preliminary enquiry and on} noticing^{that the contents of the complaintrelateto a civil dispute'} have closed^{the aforesaidcomplaint as ..civil innattrre,, on} 29.06.2025.

¶36

Learned^{Government Pleader wouldfurther submitthat the} respondents-authorities^{except causing preliminary enquiry into} the complaint^{lodged by the sth respondent are not interfering in} the civil^{disputesor supporting the caseof the respondent Nos'S &} 6, for the^{petitionerto feel aggrievedby the said action of the} respondents-authorities,^{as the authoritieswereonly discharging} their official^{dutiesby causing preliminaryenquiry into the}

¶37

¶38

complaint l0dged and thereafter having closed the sarne as ..civil in nature" on 29.06.2025.

¶39

The aforesaid submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Home is taken on record.

¶40

B Having regard to the submissions made as above and since, it is now stated before this Court that on the Sth respondent

¶41

approaching the respondents_authorities on 24.06.2025 and lodging a complaint against the petitioner herein, the authorities after causing preliminary enquiry having closed the said complaint as "civil in nature,,, on 29.06.2025, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are to be directed not to interfere with the personal life a,d liberty of the petitioner, as well as the civil disputes that may exist between the petitioner and the unofficiar respondents herein, except in accordance with law.

¶42

Subject to the above directions, the Writ petition is disposed

¶43

of. No order as to costs.

¶44

10 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶45

sD/'AHESB+fflfkEtt THiH ./

¶46

//TRUE^COPY// SEC N OFFICER

¶47

To, 1 The Principal^{Secretary to Home Department' Secretariate' Hyderabad}

¶48

. ... :':

¶49

The Commissioner^{of Police,Warangal Commissionarate' Warangal'}

¶50

The Sub-lnspector^{of Police, Tharigoppula Police Station' Tharigoppula(V)} and (M), Jangaon^Dist.

¶51

The Assistant^{Sub-lnspectorof Police,Tharigoppula Police Station'}

¶52

Tharigoppula^(V) and^{(M)' Jangaon Dist'}

¶53

One CC to^{SRl. I/ YESHWANTH KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]}

¶54

6.TwoCCstoGPFoRHoME'HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana.[oUT]

¶55

7 Two CD Copies

KKS LS

HIGH^GOURT

DATED:17^t0712025

<br>

1^rr( o,c
(
+
.)
t)t) 10 StP i[25
*

¶62

ORDER

¶63

WP.No.20502^{of 2025}

¶64

DISPOSING THE^{WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT COSTS

¶65

,b /oS 2

Narlengula Chandraiah v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narlengula Chandraiah 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

Syed Abdul Hakeem Vs The State of Telangana

B. Venkateswara Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

C. Sham Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Sunitha Devi Jena Vs The State of Telangana

Siddam Rajaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Kotla Rama Devi Vs The State of Telangana