Telangana High Court
WP/24797/2007 of Chebrolu Hari Prasada Rao Chowdary, Vs The Superintendent of Police, on 24 December 2007
SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24797 OF 2007. Date: 24.12.2007. Between: Chebrolu Hari Prasada Rao Chowdary, S/o.Late Venkatyaratnam, aged 64 years, R/o.Stambalagaruvu, Guntur. …Petitioner. AND The Superintendent of Police, Guntur, Guntur District and two others.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.24797 OF 2007.
Date: 24.12.2007.
Between:
Chebrolu Hari Prasada Rao Chowdary,S/o.Late Venkatyaratnam, aged 64 years,R/o.Stambalagaruvu, Guntur.
…Petitioner.
AND
The Superintendent of Police,
Guntur, Guntur District and two others.
…..Respondents.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.24797 OF 2007.
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:
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks declarationby way of Mandamus, to declare the action of respondent No.2 ininsisting to settle the civil dispute between the petitioner andrespondent No.3 and to pay an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- torespondent No.3 as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner claims to be the owner and possessorof the land in an extent of 750 square yards covered by SurveyNo.258 and 256, in the municipal limits of Guntur. Alleging that thepetitioner entered into an agreement to sell the above said extentby receiving an amount of Rs.93,750/-, respondent No.3 filed suitin O.S.No.1689 of 2005, on the file of the Additional Junior CivilJudge, Guntur, seeking perpetual injunction orders.
The petitioner is contesting the said suit. It is stated that thoughan agreement was entered into, but it was given as a security andthe same was not acted upon to transfer the property.
In this Writ Petition, the grievance of the petitioner isthat when such dispute is pending consideration and during thependency of the suit filed by respondent No.3, there is interferenceby respondent Nos.1 and 2 to settle the matter with regard to the civil dispute interse the petitioner and respondent No.3 and theyare insisting for payment of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- torespondent No.3.
This Court, at the stage of admission, issued noticeto respondents by order, dated 22.11.2007. In response to thesame, respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit. While generallydenying various allegations levelled by the petitioner, in thecounter affidavit, it is categorically stated as follows:
“…The allegation of the petitioner that this respondentthreatened him saying that irrespective of the pendency of thesuit, he has to pay the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- or else falsecase would be booked against him and put him behind the barsand this respondent directed the petitioner to say yes or no byMonday is false and hence denied.”
Though there is an allegation that respondent No.2 isinterfering and insisting for payment of Rs.15,00,000/- forsettlement of the dispute between respondent No.3 and thepetitioner, however except the said allegation there is no othermaterial to accept the same. Moreover, there is a categoricaldenial in the affidavit filed by respondent No.2.
In view of the averment in the counter affidavit, I dispose of the Writ Petition recording the said averment ofrespondent No.2 on record. However, it is made clear that if there is any further complaint of interference by respondentNo.2, it will be viewed seriously.
Subject to the above observation, the writ petition isdisposed of. No order as to costs.
________________________
Date: 24.12.2007.GS
R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.