Bolla Chandra Reddy v. The Director General of Police and 3 Others
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P NAVEEN RAO
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-23. Bolla Chandra Reddy v. The Director General of Police and 3 Others. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITIO N NO. 23400 0F 2020 Between: Cultivation, Bolla Chandra Reddy, S/o. Sathireddy, Aged 69 ars, occ: -y" Bha dradri District. R/o. Hemachandrapurari, Village, Lakshmidevipalli l\/andal, ... PETITIONER AND Hyderabad. 1 The Director General of Police, Lakdikapul, Kothagude-1 2 The Superintendent of Police, Bhadradri Kothagudem District' t6e Stdtion House Officer, PS Lakshmidevipalli, Bhadradri Kothagudem putvira 4 Cnittemma, W/o. Sitharamulu' Aged 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Korukonda Village, Bhadradri District. ...
RES'ONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be to pass an order or direction or writ in the nature of lt4andamus duly declaring inaction of the 3'd respondent in not considering the application of the petitioner dated 5th December,2020 seeking police protection as illegal, arbitrary and the principles of natural justice subsequently, direct the 3'd respondent to the same and provide police protection against the 4th respondent's interference in respect of property vide Ac. 03. 20 guntas including a residential house vide No. 5-10 situated at Karukonda Revenue Village, Laxmidevipalli Revenue fi/andal, Bhadradri District. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 praying that in the circumstances Petition under Section 151 CPC the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased the 3d respondent to consider the representation dated 05. 12.
2020 of the petitioner, and provide police protection against the 4th respondent's illegal interference respect of property vide Ac. 03. 20 guntas including a residential house vide situated at Karukonda Revenue Village, Laxmidevipalli Revenue lt/andal, Bhadradri District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. RAMA SHARANA SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 1 to 3: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the ResPondent No. 4: - The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 234OO OF 2O2O ORDER: Heard learned counsel Mr, P. Rama Sharana Sharma for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home 2. Petitioner claimed to be the owner and in possession of agricultural land to an e;tent of Acs. 3. 20 guntas including residential house bearing Gram Panchayat House No. S-10 in Karukonda Revenue village, Laxmidevipalli Revenue Mandal, Bhadradri-Kothagudem district.
Petitioner now alleges that 4s respondent is interfering in possession and enjoyment of the said property. According to the petitioner, 4th respondent instituted 0. S. No. 315 of 2O2O in the Court of Special Assistant Agent and Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court) at Bhadrachalam. Initially, injunction was granted. However, after hearing the petitioner, said injunction order was vacated and the said suit was dismissed. In spite of dismissal of the suit, 4fr respondent is continued to interfere in possession and enjoyment of the pl:operty. Petitioner now submits that on 05. 12. 2O2O, application was made to the loca1 Police bringing to their notice the alleged interference and obstruction created in enjoying the property. 3. Two aspects are noticed herein.
Firstly, petitioner alleges interference and disturbing the possession of the property claimed to be orr,,ned by him and in possession, and secondly, petitioner alleges even though application u,as madc for granting police protection, the same is not extended. 4. If the petitioner has grievance against alleged interference, he has to work out his remedies as availabie ir-r law. Secondly, if petitioner liled complaint, it is open to him to pursue the said complaint and work out his remedy as available under the Code of Criminal Procedure as held by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govind Raju Sami v. State of Telangana and Othersl and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam and another v. S. Janaki and another2. Thus, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy as available in law, Writ Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed. (s)ALT 13e lzots 2020 scc online s. c. 341 ' SD/.
T,TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION FFICER To '1. IOPUCI One CC to Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma, Advocate toi tt'1" Statebf Telahgana at Hyderabad. 2. rwo CCs to Gp for riom-e,"i]g; Cirrrt tourl 3. Two CD CoPies. IVP ,xrr\' HIGH COURT DATED:2311212020 1 1 E s 1 I/q ( . J 11 Z JAN 2,2t c ORDER * WP. No. 23400 of 2020 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \oO %\ +i)
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.