Telangana High Court
WP/32741/2010 of M.Venkateswarlu Vs The District Superintendent Of Police on 30 December 2010
SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32741 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For all the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or any appropriate writ/s or
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.32741 of2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under:
“For all the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit that thisHon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or any appropriatewrit/s or direction/s more particularly in the nature of mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the dayto day activities and possession of the petitioner over Acs.13.29cents in Sy.No.75 Jafalapuram Village within Panchayat limits ofKambalpadu, Podili, Prakasam District, is illegal, arbitrary andunconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents not toharass the petitioner.”
It is the allegation of the petitioner that though dispute betweenhim and the fourth respondent is civil in nature, at the instance of thefourth respondent, respondents 2 and 3 are interfering with hispossession over the land admeasuring Acs.13.29 cents covered bySurvey No.75 situated at Jafalapuram Village within Panchayat limitsof Kambalpadu, Podili, Prakasam District.
On instructions, it is submitted by the learned AssistantGovernment Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 3 thatthe petitioner lodged a complaint with the police on 23.12.2010 statingthat the fourth respondent along with her henchmen trespassed intohis land and tried to beat him, and requested to take action. It is statedthat on such complaint, the Station House Officer, Podili PoliceStation, made an entry in General Diary and the enquiry revealed thatthe fourth respondent did not trespass into the land of the petitionerand did not threaten him. It is further stated that the dispute betweenthe petitioner and the fourth respondent is of civil nature and O.S.No.7of 2008 with regard thereto is pending on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Podili, as such, the petitioner was advised to approach theCourt of law. It is also stated that respondents 1 to 3 have denied theallegation that they are interfering with day-to-day activities of thepetitioner and his possession over the land in question.
Though there is an allegation made by the petitioner againstrespondents 2 and 3, based on the written instructions, it is submittedby the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing forrespondents 1 to 3 that there is no interference by respondents 2 and 3with the possession of the petitioner over the land in question.
In that view of the matter, recording the statement of the learnedAssistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1to 3 that respondents 2 and 3 are not interfering with the possession ofthe petitioner over the land in question, this writ petition is disposed of.Any such complaint further will be viewed seriously. No order as tocosts.
_______________________
R.SUBHASH REDDY, J
30[th] DECEMBER, 2010.
kvni