Disposed

Vucha Rangandha Babu v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC20 Aug 2025WP/24583/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging police interference in a land dispute after the underlying complaint was withdrawn. The Court directed respondents to follow due process before initiating any action on the petitioner's behalf.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to respondent authorities to follow due process before initiating any action on the petitioner.

Vucha Rangandha Babu Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[^32s5 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 24583^{OF 2025}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Vucha Rangandha Babu, S/o. Ramakrishna,^{Age{ 62 Years,Occ.Retired} Governmen[ Employee, R/o. H.No.^{16-2-8351112,New Saidabad,Hyderabad} - 500059.

¶9

,..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana,^{Rep by its Principal Secretary, Departmentof Home,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Director General of Police, State of^{Telangana, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.} 3. The Commissioner of Police,^{RachakondaPolice Commissionerate,} Telangana state.

¶13

Assist-ant Commissioner of Police Office, lbrahimpatanam,^Telangana.

¶14

Deputy Commissioner of Police Office,^{Maheshwaram Zone,Hyderabad}

¶15

The Circle lnspecior of Police, Adibatla^{PoliceStation,Hyderabad.}

¶16

lnspector of Police, Adibatla Police, Hyderabad.

¶17

B. Station House Officer, Adibatla Police, Hyderabad.

¶18

Bokka Swetha Reddy, W/o. Dasri Shekar^{Reddy,Aged31 years, Occ.} Housewife, Rl/o. H.No. 2-78, Patiguda Village, Turkayamjal,^{R.R District,} Telangana - 501 510.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more^particularly oneⁱⁿ the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent^{Nos. 7 and 8} in interfering in a^purely civil dispute by interfering in the^{petitioner'speaceful} possession and ownership of the property bearing Plot No.^'l , 2'1 1 square yards / 176.42 sq. meters in Survey No. 27912, Tukamyajal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, at the behest of private Respondent No.9, as illegal, arbitrary, without^jurisdiction and in^gross violation of Articles 14 and 21 of^the Constitution of lndia. and consequently direct the official Respondents not^to

-:f

1 I I I

i I I I

perpetual iniunction zrlde OS.No.665 of 2025 and the same is pending on the file of Junior Civil [udge, Ranga Reddy at LB Nagar

¶25

Learncd counsel for thc petitioner submits that the 1;etitioncl neither intcrfcred with rcsponclcnt No.9 propertv nor had causcd att1, distulbance to her property and inspite of the same, respondent Nos.7 anrl B arc harassing the petitioner. Agerievcd by the same, this writ petition^is fik'cl

¶26

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Hotne appearing^for respondent Nos.1 to 8 placed on rccorrl instructions issuetl by Inspector of Police, Adibatla Policc Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, r.t,hcrein it^is statecrl that uporL respondent No.9 complaint clatecl^{04.01i.2025,rcspondent} No.ii had starteci investigation ancl during the course of in,estigation,^{it was} reveled that the dispute between the pctitioner and respondct-tt^{No.9 pertains} to land bounclarl, and later cluling the course of enQtrfir, rcspondent No.9 stated that she will construct compound wall around hcr plc,t and^u,ithdrawn her complaint. Accordingly, the saicl complaint was closecl as^"withdrawn" on 10.08.2025.

¶27

Per conLra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the complaint was closed on 10.08.2025, the petitioner was called to the^police station on 15-08.2025 and pray this Court to direct the respondent^authorities not to harass the petitioner under the guisc of investigatiot-t of a cornplaint which is already closed on 10.08.2025

¶28

¶29

7 Recording the submissions rnade by the learned counsel appearing on eithcr side, without exprcssing any opinion on the merits of thc casc and since the respondent No.9 complaint dated 04.08.2025 is closed as "withdrawn", this writ petition is disposed of dirccting the respondent authorities to follow due process as contcmplated unclcr law before initiating any action on thc petitioner

¶30

With the above direction, this writ petition 1S disposed of Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closcd. No order as to costs

¶31

SD/. B. REKHA RANI A S TANT REGIST

/ffRUE COPYII

CTION OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secreta ,^{T.S.,Hyderabad} 2 The Director General of Police, State of Telangana, Lakdi kapool, Hyderabad 3 The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Police Commissionerate, Telangana state.

¶36

4q The Assistant Commissioner of Police Office, lbrahimpatanam, Telangana The Deputy Commissioner Police Office, lVlaheshwaram Zone, Hyderabad

¶37

b The Circle lnspector of Police, Adibatla Police Station, Hyderabad. 7 The lnspector of Police, Adibatla Police, Hyderabad. 8 The Station House Officer, Adibatla Police, Hyderabad. o One CC to SRl. K. S. SAI PAVAN, Advocate IOPUCI 10.Two CCs to GP FOR HOI\4E,High Courl forthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

¶38

'l '1.Two CD Copies s^BtM GJP

I I ! i ! I I t t I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2010812025

-z' . .'
24 SEP zffi
.i,.t
,. -,..',!',.--,-... -,.. r :J,

¶43

ORDER

¶44

WP.No.24583 of 2025

¶45

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶46

1 {

Vucha Rangandha Babu v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vucha Rangandha Babu 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

Sudhakar Vangavarapu Vs The State Of Telangana

Deva Madkami Vs The State of Telangana

Jeeripothula Pattabhi Ramaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Pilli Sanjay Anand Vs The State of Telangana

Mamidi Sampath Vs The State of Telangana

Sayyed Mohmood Vs The State of Telangana