WP/36801/2024 of Smt. Ameeta Bansal Vs The State of Telangana, on 31 December 2024

1. Smt. Ameeta Bansal, Wo. Late Mr. Shyam Sunder Bansal, Aged about 61years, Occ Business, Ri,/o. FIat No. 403 and 405, Rock Levelz, 8-2-68412,Gulmohar Avenue, Road No. 12, Baojara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500034.years, Occ Business, Ri,/o. FIat No. 403 and 405, Rock Levelz, 8-2-68412,Gulmohar Avenue, Road No. 12, Baojara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500034.

2. Sri. Harsh Bansal, S/o. Late Mr. Shyam Sunder Bansal, Aged about 31 years,Occ Business, R:/o. Flat No. 403 and 405, Rock Levelz, 8-2-68412, GulmoharAvenue, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 034.Occ Business, R:/o. Flat No. 403 and 405, Rock Levelz, 8-2-68412, GulmoharAvenue, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500 034.

..PETITIONERS

AND

1. The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Departmentof Home, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad 500 004.of Home, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad 500 004.2. Director General of Police, Telangana State Office of D.G.P at Lakdikapool,Saifabad, HyderabadSaifabad, Hyderabad

3. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad Zone, Hyderabad.5. The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District,Telangana4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad Zone, Hyderabad.5. The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District,Telangana

6. The Station House Officer, Shamshabad Police Station, Ranga ReddyDistrict, TelanganaDistrict, Telangana

7. The Sub lnspector of Police, Shamshabad Police Station Ranga ReddyDistrict, TelanganaDistrict, Telangana

8. Sri Sandeep Agarwal, S/o. Late Sri Rajeshwar Lal Agarwal, Aged about 46Years, Occ Business, R:/o. Plot No. 51-E, Raghavendranagar Colony,Shivrampally, Hyderabad, Telangana.Years, Occ Business, R:/o. Plot No. 51-E, Raghavendranagar Colony,Shivrampally, Hyderabad, Telangana.

9. Sri Sanjay Agarwal, S/o. Late Sri Rajeshwar Lal Agarwal, Aged about 45Years, Occ Business, R/o. PIot No. 51-E, Raghavendranagar Colony,Shivrampally, Hyderabad, TelanganaYears, Occ Business, R/o. PIot No. 51-E, Raghavendranagar Colony,Shivrampally, Hyderabad, Telangana

10. Sri Vijay Agarwal, S/o. Late Sri Rajeshwar Lal Aganrual, Aged about 44 Years,Occ Business, R/o. Plot No. 51-E, Raghavendranagar Colony, Shivrampally,Hyderabad' Telangana Occ Business, R/o. Plot No. 51-E, Raghavendranagar Colony, Shivrampally,Hyderabad' Telangana

...RES'.NDENTS

Petition under Article 226 ot ltlc- Constitution of lndia [praying ]that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature ofWrit of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Police Authorities [in]

interfering in the [civil ][disputes ][between ][the ][Petitioners and ][the ][Respondent ][Nos ][B]to [.10 ]with respect [to ][land ][admeasuring ][Acres 04-08 Guntas, ][in ][sy.Nos.l6Q/2/AA]and 16Ot2tA. [lying and forming part ][of ][Sy.No.160 situated ][at ][Tondapally ][Village,]Shamshabad [Mandal, ][Ranga Reddy ][District ][as ][illegal, ][arbitrary ][and]unconstitutional [and ][. ][further directing the ][Respondent Police ][Authorities to ][act ][in]accordance with [law ][and ][not interfere ][in ][the ][civil disputes ][of the ][Petitioner with ][the]Respondent Nos. [6 and ][7.]

IANO:1OF 2024

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]the Respondent [Police Authorities ][from ][interfering with ][the ][Petitioners rights ][in ][any]manner in retation [to ][land ][admeasuring ][Acres 04-08 Guntas, ][in ][sy.Nos.160/2/AA]and 16Ot2tA. [lying and forming part ][of ][Sy.No.'160 ][situated at Tondapally ][Village.]shamshabad [Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the ][writ ][petition.]

Counsel for the [Petitioners: ][M/s AYUSH SONTHALIA]Counsel for the [Respondent Nos.'l ][TO ][7: SRI R'LAXMIKANTH ][REDDY, AGP]FOR HOME

Counset for [the Respondent ][Nos.8 TO ][10: ]-'The Court made [the ][following: ][ORDER]

HONOURABLE [SRT ]JUSTICE [B. ][VIJAYSEN ][REDDY]WRIT[PETI][TION ][N][o.36801][ oF ][2024]

ORDER: [(ORAL)]

This writ [petition ][is ][filed ][seeking ][to ][declare ][the ][action ][of ][the]respondent [authorities ][in ][interfering the ][civil ][disputes ][pending ][between]the petitioners [and ][respondents ][No'8 ][to ][10 ][in ][respect ][of ][the ][land]admeasuring [Acs'4{8 ][guntas ][in ][Survey ][Nos'160/2/AA ][and ][1'60/2/ ][A]and [forming part ][of Survey No'160' situated at ][Tondapally Village']lying ShamshabadMandal,RangaReddyDistrict,asbeingillegal'arbitraryandunconstitutional.

2. Mr. R. [Laxmikanth Reddy' leamed ][Assistant ][Govemment ][Pleader]for Home, [basing ][on ][the written ][instructions' submitted ][that ][the]representative [of ][the ][petitioners ][by ][name ][Mr' ][Sathish ][Golla lodged ][a]with [respondent No'6 ][- the ][Station ][House ][Officer' ][Shamshabad]complaint Police Station, [on ][11.12.2024 ][stattng ][that ][there ][is ][interfererrce ][by]respondents [No.8 ][to ][10 ][with ][the ][possession ][of ][the ][petitioners ][in ][respect ][of]the subject land [and ][a ][civil ][suit ][in ][O'S' No'690 ][of ][2O24 ][was ][filed ][before the]leamed tI [Additional ][Senior Civi-l Judge, Ranga ][Reddy ][District ][(for short]'civil [Court') ]wherein [iniunction order dated ][02'72'2024 ][in ][I'A' ][No'408 ][of]2O24 [was ][passed. ][Despite the said ][injunction order' ][there ][is ][interference]

.,tkt

.,tkt

by respondents No'g to 10 in respect of the subject land. Basing on thesaid complaint, an entry was made in the General Diary and enquiry wascaused' During the course of the enquiry, it was revealed that the disputeperding between the petitioners and respondents No.g to 10 pertains toIand and a civil suit is pending before the civil Court, as sucfuthe compraint dated 1,1,.72.2024 rodged by the petitioners was closed as'civil in nature, on 2g.12.2024. It is submitted that for the said complaint, an entry was made in the General Diary and enquiry wascaused' During the course of the enquiry, it was revealed that the disputeperding between the petitioners and respondents No.g to 10 pertains toIand and a civil suit is pending before the civil Court, as sucfuthe compraint dated 1,1,.72.2024 rodged by the petitioners was closed as'civil in nature, on 2g.12.2024. It is submitted that for the purpose ofenquiry, the staff of respondent No.6 visited the subject land.The petitioners have taken photographs of the respondent police and filedthe same along with this writ affidavit a,eging that there is interferenceby respondent police with their enquiry, the staff of respondent No.6 visited the subject land.The petitioners have taken photographs of the respondent police and filedthe same along with this writ affidavit a,eging that there is interferenceby respondent police with their possession in respect of the subject land;the said allegation is false and hereby denied.the said allegation is false and hereby denied.

3' Mr' Ayush sontharia, Ieamed counsel for the petitioners, submittedthat despite the closure of the complaint dated l1.l2.2[24lodged by thepetitioners' the respondent police are interfering in the civil disputes andcoming to the subject land whenever dial 100 complaint is Iodged byrespondents No.g to 10.

4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directingrespondents No.6 and 7 not to interfere in the civil disputes pending HIGH COURT

DATED:3111212024

ORDERWP.No.36801 of 2024o31ilf-\14(i('Do6 iAu zusq *Tc DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS

t[\ \]