Disposed

G. Srikanth Goud v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Apr 2025WP/5497/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged police interference in a civil dispute over house property in Kuntloor Village. The State stated two crimes (Cr. Nos. 157 and 158 of 2025) were registered on complaints; petitioners are neither complainant nor accused. The court directed investigation strictly in accordance with law and disposed of the writ petition without costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to investigate Cr. Nos. 157 and 158 of 2025 and take further action strictly in accordance with law; writ disposed of, no costs.

G. Srikanth Goud Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶¹

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5497 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

G. Srikanth Goud, S/o. Kumar Goud, Age 40 years, Occ. Labour, Fl/o. Plot No. 290, Kuntloor Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

P. Puranda, Wo. P. Ravikumar, Age 35 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. Plot No. 314, Kuntloor Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

M. Sampathamma, W/o. Bhasker Rao, Age 42 yea$, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. Plot No. 321, Kuntloor Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

N. Jangaiah, S/o. Swamy, Age 48 years, Occ. Labor, R:/o. Plot No. 323, Kuntloor Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

K. Venkatesh, S/o. Balaiah, Age 43 years, Occ. Labor, Rl/o. Plot No. 292, Kuntloor Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy r,r,r'll.r=r,r,On

¶13

AND =*,

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Station House Officer, Hayathnagar Police Station Rachakonda commissionerate

¶16

...RES'.NDENTS

¶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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 2 in involving in civil disputes, disturbing their possession in respect of house properties of the petitioners in Sy. No. 27811 of Kuntloor Village is arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to interfere in the possessory rights of the house properties of the petitioners.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

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

¶20

the Respondent No. 2 not to involve in civil disputes in respect of house properties of the petitioners in Sy. No.27811 of Kuntloor Village.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI THADIKONDA KOTESHWARA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

I I

¶24

I I

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD^KUMAR

¶26

W.P.No. 5497 of 2o25

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

None appears for the petitioners. Heard learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the official respondents,^and perused the record.

¶29

The case of the petitioners, as set out in the writ aflidavit filed in support bf the^present Writ^Petition, is that^{the 2"d} respondent is interfering in the civil disputes in^respect of^his house property situated in survey No.27811 of Kuntloor^Viilage, which action of the 2nd respondent it is contended as highly^illegal, arbitrary, and without sanction of law.

¶30

Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents-authorities submits that the authorities^on receiving two complaints in respect of the same subject land, have registered two cases uide Crime Nos. 157 of 2025 and 158 of 2025.

¶31

karned Government Pleader further submits that in both the aforementioned crimes, petitioners are neither the complainant nor the accused, and as such there is no necessity for the authorities to interfere with the liberty of the petitioner or his alleged possession over the subject property.

¶32

Learned Government Pleader would however submit^that since, two crimes have been registered in respect 3L {- ".*"

¶33

¶34

subject properqy, the respondents-authorities in the course of enquiry have visited the scene of offence and except causing invesLigation into the aforesaid crimes registered, they are not interfering or involving themselves in civil dispute in respect of house property of the petitioner situated in survey No.2Zg / I of Kuntloor village.

¶35

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

¶36

Having regard to the submissions made as above, and since, the respondents-authorities claim to have registered two cases uzrCe Cr.Nos. 157 of 2025 and 158 of 2025 pursuant to the complaints lodged, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are to be directed to conduct investigation into the aforesaid crimes and take further action, strictly in accordance with law.

¶37

B Subject to the above direction, the Writ petition is disposed of. No order as Lo costs.

¶38

I Conseque nt1y, miscella:neous petitions, if any, pending shall

¶39

stand closed

¶40

SD/.P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA D PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

ECTION OFFICER

The princi Telanganapa I Secretary, Home Department, Secreta at, Hyderabad, State of

¶45

The Station House Com missionerate.^{Officer, Hayathnagarpolice Station} Rachakonda

¶46

3 One CC to SRI TH 4 Two CCs to GP FOR HOMEADIKONDA KOTESHWARA PRASAD , Advocate [oPUC] Hvderabad lourl H igh Court for the State of Telangana, at

5 Two CD Cop tes

PSK, LS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1510412025

ORDER

WP.No.5497 of 2025

T E 4
o
a)

s
$
LL
\ <br>
t1 .-)
.{u*. :

¶54

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶55

@
W

G. Srikanth Goud v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Srikanth Goud 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

Smt. Guttikonda Gousia Banoo Vs The State of Telangana

N R Laxman Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Muppavaram Saida Chary Vs Jinkala Venkataiah

Gaddaguti Naresh Vs The State of Telangana

Vemula Venkateshwar Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Dhaida Saidulu Vs The State of Telangana