Disposed

Mohd.Yaseen, v. The State of Talangana

Telangana HC5 Dec 2025WP/29438/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions sought restraint against the Maheshwaram SHO from interfering in a civil land dispute between the petitioners and an unofficial respondent over survey nos. 21 and 22. The court reiterated that police must not interfere in purely civil disputes and disposed of both writ petitions in terms of earlier interim orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed in terms of interim orders dated 24.06.2014 and 26.09.2014 restraining police from interfering in the civil land dispute; no costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

Mohd.Yaseen, Vs The State of Talangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁸⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOs: 29438 & 15846 OF 2014

¶7

W.P.No.29438 OF 2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

fVlohd.Yaseen, S/o. Late Mohd. Sharifuddin, Age 32 years, Occupation Agriculture, Rl/o. H.No.1-73, Porandla Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District.

¶10

,..PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Talangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District

¶14

The Station House Officer, lVlaheshwaram Police Station, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District.

¶15

Subhash Kapoor, S/o. Late Bankat Prasad, Occupation Business, aged about 54 years, Ftioo.14-1 1-1068, Beerbanbagh, Shainayath Gunj, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of lMandamus declare the inaction of the 2nd respondent not taking any disciplinary action against the respondent No.3 on the complaints dt.5-09-2014 of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and consequent direction direct the respondent No.3 not to interfere in civil matter of the petitioner land an extent of 4c.42-28 guntas in survey No.21 and 22 situated at Porandla-Village, Maheshwaram-Mandal, R.R.District.

¶18

I.A. NO: 2OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 36793 OF 20141

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ lmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 and his sub-ordinates not to inte- )re in civil matter of the petitioner land an extent of Ac.42-28 guntas in survey N r .21 and 22 situated at Porandla Village, [Vlaheshwaram: f\ilandal, R.R.District penrl rg writ petition.

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WVMP. NO: 2882 oF 20141

¶21

Between:

¶22

Subhash Kapoor, S/o. Late Bankat Prasad, Occupation Bus r i:ss, aged about 54 years, Ftioo.14-1 1-'1068, Beerbanbagh, Shainayath Gunj, Hyder :rbad.^-

¶23

...VACATE S'I' \Y PETITIONERYR4

¶24

AND

¶25

1 Mohd.Yaseen, S/o. Late Mohd. Sharifuddin, Age 32 years, Occupation Agriculture, Rl/o. H.No.1-73, Porandla Village, [Vlah rshwaram [r/bndal, Rangareddy District

¶26

... RESPONDENT WRIT PETITIONER

¶27

1. The State of Talangana, Rep. by its Principal Secr ,tary, Home Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad_

¶28

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Rangareddy D s 'rict

¶29

The Station House Officer, l\rlaheshwaram Police { tation, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District.

¶30

.S/RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDETI

¶31

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr;r mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mz I be pleased vacate the interim ORDER passed in WP No. 29438 of 2014 dated 2) 09-2014.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI GANDYADAPU RAJESHAM

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : SRt B.SRINIVAS, ASt T.Gp FOR HOME

¶34

W.P.No.15846 OF 2014

¶35

Between:

¶36

Smt.Vazeer Bee, (died) per LRs 2&3

¶37

Mohd. Shabuddin S/o. late Mohd. Sharifuddin, Age 35 years, Occupation Agriculture, Rl/o. H.No.1-73, Porandla Village, Maheshwaram i,4andal, Rangareddy District.

¶38

Mohd.^Yaseen S/o.^late Mohd. Sharifuddin, Age 33^years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-73, Porandla Village, ti/aheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District.

¶39

Petitioners 2and3 are brought on record as LRs of deceased 1st petitioner as per C.O. dt.27-12-14 in WPMP 32254 ot 14.

¶40

...PETITIONER

¶41

AND

¶42

1 The State of Talangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶43

2 The Station House Officer, [\i'laheshwaram Police Station, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District.

¶44

J Subhash Kapoor, S/o. Late Bankat Prasad, Occupation Business, aged about 54^{years,Ryoo.14-1} 1-1068, Beerbanbagh, Shainayath Gunj, Hyderabad.

¶45

...RESPONDENTS

¶46

Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances^stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith,} the^High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare^{the action} of the 2nd^respondent interfering into civil matter of the petitioner^{land an extentof Ac.42-28guntas in} survey No.21 and 22 situated at Porandla-Village,^{IVaheshwaram-Mandal,} R.R.District and the same is illegal, arbitrary and^{against principles} of natural^justice and violation of fundamental rights and declare the same without^jurisdiction and consequent direction direct the respondent^{No.2 not} to interfere in civil matter of the^petitioner land an extenI of Ac.42-28^guntas in survey No.2'l and 22 situated at Porand^la-Village, Ma heshwara^{m-Mand al, R.R.District.}

¶47

t.A. NO: 2 OF 2014(WPMP. N O:21354 OF 2014)

¶48

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to receive the additional material paper as per list of material pe rer.

¶49

l.A. NO: 1OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 1 9626 0F 2014)

¶50

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the cir umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou 1 may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 not to interfere in civil matter of t e petitioner land an extent of 4c.42-28 guntas in survey No.2'l and 22 situateri at porand Ia:village, Maheshwaram:lMandal, R.R.District pending writ petition in tr , interest of justice.

¶51

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI GANDYADAPU RAJESHAII

¶52

Counsel for the Respondents No.'l&2 : GP FOR HOME

¶53

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶54

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶55

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶56

TYRIT PETITION N0.29438 of 2AL4

¶57

DATE: 05.12. 2o25

¶58

Between:

¶59

Mohd. Yaseen . . . Petitioner

¶60

AND

¶61

The State of Telangala Rep by its Principal Secretar5z, Home Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad & three others

¶62

. . . Respondents

¶63

WRIT PETITION No.15846 of2Ot4

¶64

Between:

¶65

Smt. Vazeer Bee and two others ..Petitioners

¶66

AND

¶67

The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretar5z, Home Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad & two others

¶68

..Respondents

¶69

COMMON ORDER

¶70

The Wdt Petition No 15846 of 2Ol4 is hied seeking the following reliet

¶71

"...to issue al order or direction, more particuiarly in the nature of Writ of Malda:nus declare the action of the 2nd respondent interfering into civil matter of the petitioner land

¶72

¶73

VRK& J .tP 29438 k t5846 2014

¶74

an extent of Ac.42-28^{guntas in survey Nos} 21 and 22 situated at Poraldla^{Vil1age,Maheshwar r} ,:r Mandal, R-R.District and tl.e same is^{illegal, arbitrary} md against principles of natura,l^justice and^violationof rndamental rights ald declare the^{same withoutjuris} liction ald conseolent direction direct the^{respondenl l} o.2 not to interfere in civil matter of^{the petitionerland} n ex-tent of Ac.42-28^guntas in^{survey Nos.21ar'd 22} situated at Poranclla Viltage,^{M aheshrr,'aramMandal, R.R. Dis} rict..."

¶75

The Writ Petition No. 29438 of 2Ol+ is^{iled seeking the} following^relief

¶76

"... to issue an order or direction,^more 1> rticularly in t-lle natnre of Writ of Mandamus^{declaretlle ir} Lction of the 2nd respondent not taking any disciplinary^rr tion against the respondent No.3 on the complaints^{dated C} i.O9.2014 of the petrtioner is i1lega1, arbitrary and conseqr nt direction direct the respondent No.3 not to interfere in^c r.i1 matter of the petitioner lald an extent of Lc.42-28^gurl ls in survey Nos.2 1 and 22 situated at Porandla-Vi1lage,^{Iv r} heshwaramManclal. R.R. Dislrict and^pass..."

¶77

Heard Sri Gandyadapu Rajesham,^iearns I^counsel for^the petitioner and Sri^{Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, lr arnedAssistant} Government^{Pleaderfor Home appearingfor r} -'spondent^{Nos. I} to 3 in^{W P.No.29438of 2Ol4 and appearitrr; for respondent} Nos.l and 2 in^W.P.No.l5a46 of 2014.

¶78

This Court uide order dated 24.06.2014 n W.P.No. 15846 of 2014,^passed a^detailed order in W.P.M.P.),:.19626 of 2Ot4

¶79

¶80

VRKR. J wP 2943E & t5E46 20t4

¶81

(I.A.No.l of 2Ol4), restraining respondent No.2 (SHO) in interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent. The said interim order is extracted here

¶82

under:-

¶83

"The petitioner, a 63-year-old agriculturist, claims nght, title and interest in the a.forementioned land, on the strength ald basis of a grft deed said to have been executed in her favour on 27.10.1978 by one Sri Mohd. Sharfuddrn, S/o Sri Shahabuddin. It is not in dispute that one Sri Khaja Moinuddin was recorded as the pattadar over the land situated in Survey Nos. 21 and 22 of Porandla Village as per the revenue records, such as Sethwar, Wasool Baqui of Porandla Village for the year 1357 Fasli. As per the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55, the land is recorded as patta land in the name of Sri Khaja Moinuddin and the names of Sri Nagula Anthaiai arrd others are recorded in Column No. 1 1 as occupants and cultivators in the capacity of protected tenants. Sri Mohd. Sharfuddin, who has gifted the property to the petitioner, clarmed to be the brother of Sri Khaja Moinuddin. As Sri Khala Moinuddin has no children, Sri Mohd. Sharfuddin claims to have succeeded to tJ.e estate of Sri Khaja Moinuddin. One Sri Ahmed Shareef, S/o Sri Modh.. Badsha Shareef, who does not normally reside at resident of Poraldla Village but is Hyderabad City, parallelly clarmed as a legal heir of the original pattadar Sri Khaja Moinuddin and secured a succession certificate from the Tahsildar, lbrahimpatnam on 17.O4.1964, but however, he was not in possession arrd enjoyment over the said land but the land was in possession of the protected tenants alrd their legal heirs. it is a.lso revealed that Sri Ahmed Shareef did not return to India after he left for London during 1984, but the GPA holder of Sri Ahmed Shareef, namely Sri Mohd. Mahboob Shareef @ Amjad has executed two registered sale deeds during 1984 a.lie- ng ttre land in Survey

-* '-rr

VRKR. J ,\ , 29438 & 15846 2014

¶88

Nos. 21 and 22 in favour of the 3rd^{respondent ar<} his brother. - Therefore, there is any amount of controversy^{to I} e right, title and interest of the respective^{parties wit}. regardt} the land in question. One has also to ascertain as to whether^tL : GPA holder of Sri Mohd. Ahmed Shareef, namely Sri Mohd.^Ma: roob Shareef has execrrted the two sale deeds^prior to the^dearl ,f Sri Ahmed Shareef at l,ondon or thereafter. The legal^principle r this regard is fairly very well-settled. A GPA holder^{will havetlr,} authorit]'to deat with the estate of the^principal so long^{as th} principal is alive. With the death of the principal, his consti^-r ted attomey power to deal with the estate a.lso ceases. Therefor,: the hrst and the fundamental question that is required to^trc rddressed is when did Sri Ahmed Shareef died in London and^r ; to whether the two registered sale deeds, which have been^e:l :uted by his GPA holder, were prior to his death or afterwarj r. [f the two registererl sale deeds were executed by the GPA^hc der after the death of *re principal, namely Sri Ahmed Shareei,^t rey will be of no avail.

¶89

Per contra, the petitioner is claiming to be 1 possessron of the land in question from 1991 onwards and : .ltivating the same. Therefore, the balalce of convenience ceriai ly lies, as at present adwised, in favour of the writ petitioner, blrt :rot in favour of the 3rd respondent or his brother. The 3rd res; ndcnt or his brother cannot approach the^police at Ibratⁱ npatnam or Ma-heshu'aram or Porandla and start causing ar , amount of disturbance to the possession of the^{petidoner:uL,} her right to cultivate the lands in question if she is in^possessi,) thereof.

¶90

Therefore, the 2nd respondent Station House⁽⁾ icer and his men are restrained from interfering in any^manne: ',vith the civil disputes between the petitioner on the one hanrl and the 3rd respondent and his brother on the other."

¶91

¶92

VRK&^J wP 29438 & t5U6 2014

¶93

During the pendency of the said writ petition, the original petitioner, Smt. Vazeer Bee, passed away, and her legal heirs were brought on record as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.

¶94

However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that despite the said detailed interim order dated 24.06.2014 passed in W.P.M.P.No.L9626 of 2014, the^police were not giving effect to the said interim order on the^ground that the said Writ Petition got abated by virtue of the^{death of} said Vazeer Bee. Further, though it was clarified that upon^the death of the said Y az.eer Bee, the interim order would^continue to remain operative, the police were not ready to accept the^said submission and thereby refused to implement the same

¶95

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that were under the aforesaid circumstalces, the^petitioners constrained to file another writ petition^{uide W.P.No.29438of} 2Ol4 and this Court once again^passed interim^orders restraining the police from interfering into^{the civil disputes.}

¶96

Counter affidavits were filed by the Station^{House Officer} (SHO) in both the writ petitions, making similar averments particularly disputing the allegation made by the^petitioners that the police interfered in the civil disputes.^{Further, the}

¶97

¶98

VRK& J wP 294i8 & 15846 2014

¶99

SHO also specifically^stated that^{upon the comtr'l} rint lodged by the unofhcial respondent before^{theMahe s} vararn Police a-l cases were Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate,^{4 crimrr} registered against the sole petitioner^{in W.P.No.2} )438 of 2014. Ultimately, out of the said 4 cases^registered by the police against him, 3 cases i.e., C.C.Nos.467^{of 2015, l} zO ald 541 of 2016, ended in acquittal on 22.02.2019,^O1 ll.2O24 and 17 .O3.2023 respectively. However,^{in one case.} :., C.C.No.487 of 2015, the charges framed against^{the petitiorl} r were proved and he was found guilty thereby imposing^{hner,r I} h Rs.1,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioners^{has sttt} ,:d across the bar that upon hling the appeal against^{the judg} nent made in connection with C.C.No .487 of 2O 15, the^{sarne t} as allowed by the Appellate Court.

¶100

The learned counsel for the petitioner cate5 rrically stated that all the cases in which the sole^petitioner ir^{ri/.P.No.29438} of 2Ol4 was implicated were in respect of the ver- same subject matter, which is essentially "Civil in Nature".

¶101

In paragraph No.10 of the counter iled by the Police/respondent No.3 in W.P.No.29438 o 2014, it is categorically stated that mere registration of the bove criminal cases^on the complaint made by unofficial r:jpondent and

/ -/

VRK& J wP 29418 & 15845 2014

¶106

iI i

¶107

proceeding with the investigation therein, does not arnount to interference by police in civil^{disputes, as alleged by the} petitioners. It is further stated that the writ^{petitionswere} filed with an intention to escape from the offences and^{to divert the} attention of the investigating agency in^{proceedingwith the} investigation of the said cases.

¶108

It is settled law that^{the policeauthorities cannot interfere} in purely civil disputes and the limited^{grievanceraised by the} petitioners in both the writ petitions is to the effect^{that the} police were interfering in civil^disputes.

¶109

Having regard to the aforesaid factual^{background and in} the light of the specific stand taken by the^{policeauthorities in} the counter affrdavit, this Court^{deems it necessar5r to reiterate} and place a clear restriction^on the^{exercise of police powers in} matters which are essentially civil in nature.^{The police} authorities shall confine^{themselvesstrictly to the performance} of their statutory duties and^{shall not summon, thereafter,} coerce or otherwise interfere^{with the petitioners in relationto} disputes of a purely civil character,^{unless the facts disclosed} independently constitute a cognizable^{offence warranting action} in accordance with law. Any action^{in deviationthereof shall} not be countenanced.

¶110

¶111

VRKR, J sI 29438 & 15846 20t4

¶112

Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposec of in terms of the interim order dated 24.06.2014 passed in V/ P.No.15846 of 2014 and interim order dated 26.O9.2O passed ln

¶113

W.P.No.29438 of 2014. There shall be no order il , to costs.

¶114

Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if an^,, shall stand

¶115

closed

¶116

Sd/.A.Ti l.EENIVASA REDDY ASSI iTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Principal Secretary, State of Talangana, Home Dept Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶122

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad,^Rangareddyt) ';trict

¶123

The Station House Officer, Maheshwaram^{Police Statiort Cyberabad,} Rangareddy District.

¶124

One CC to SRI GANDYADAPU RAJESHAM,^{Advocate IPUCI}

¶125

A Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the^{State o' .'elangana.} [OUT]

¶126

f) One CC to SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR, Advocate. [OP -^]l

¶127

7 Two CD Copies.

BSK

(

HIGH COURT

VRKR,J

DATED:0511212025

.\ HE Ii AiE
,;)
3 1[ tt] 202[ :>

cES F, i;J

¶135

COMMON ORDER

¶136

WP.No.29438 & 15846 ot 2014

¶137

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS

¶138

L 1
q "/

Mohd.Yaseen, v. The State of Talangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd.Yaseen, v. The State of Talangana

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

Angel Constructions and Builders Vs D. Nandishwar Goud and 17 others

The Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/S. Mesco Educational Institutions

Mohd.Aqueel Qureshi,Hyd Vs Govt.of Ap,Prl.Scy,Home,Hyd,and 9

Nethavath Goliya, Warangal Dist and Another Vs Banoth Lachya, Warangal Dist and 2 Others

Shaik Saleem Vs Sri Shaik Masthan and Another

Smt.Vazeer Bee, (died) per LRs - 2AND3 Vs The State of Talangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary