Mohammed Maqsood uz Zama Qureshi v. 1. The State of Telangana

.Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praytrq that in the circlmstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be 'fGas6o io iJsue a'wiit, oroei or directian"riidE ptAibuliiiy oiid'=iritlicj'n"atiite'br Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in keeping the petitioners property under lock and key bearing Municipal No.19-2A1lN2lB, admeasuring an extent of 920 sq. yards situated at Khaja Pahadi, Tadban, Meer Sagar Village, Hyderabad, Telangana State illegal, arbitrary and in violation of f., ---j? r'-'--:- Articles, 14,21and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the officiql respgndentsl to hand ove[ the keys and possession of the petitiongrs premises bearing Municipal No.19-2-81lN2lB. admeasuring an extent of 920 sq. yards sil.uated at Khaja Pahadi, Tadban, Meer Sagar Village, Hyderabad, Telangana State lA NO: 2 OF 2018 Pertition'under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidervit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the official respondents to hand over the keya and possession of the petitione/s premises bearing Municipal No.19-2-81 lNZ|B, admeasuring an extent of 920 sq. yards situated at Khaja Pahadi, Tadban, Meer Sagar Vitlage, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M LAYEEQ KHAN (NOT PRESENO Counsetl for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: SRI D. PRADEEP, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 : SRI MIRZA NISAR AHMAD BAIG The Corrrt made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI 18 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following reliel "...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the oflicial respondents in keeping the petitioners propert5r under lock and key bearing Municipal No.19-2-8IlAl2lB, admeasuring an extent of 92O sq. yards situated at Kh4ia Pahadi, Tadban, Meer Sagar Village, Hyderabad, Telangana State illegal, arbitrary and in violation-of Articles, 14, 2L and 3OO-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the official respondents to hand over the keys and possession of the petitioners premises bearing Municipal No.19-2-8llAl2lB, admeasuring an extent of 92O sq. yurd" situated at Khaja Pahadi, Tadban, Meer Sagar Village, Hyderabad, Telangana State and be pleased to pass..."

2. None appears for the petitioner.

3. Heard. Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, and Mr. Mirza Nisar Ahmed Baig, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the basis of written instructions, submits that the petitioner's allegation tha! the respondent/police authorities have unlawfully kept the petitioner's house property under lock and key is wholly baseless unsupported by any material evidence. He contends that 2 respondent Nos. 3 to s have never interfered with or taken possession of the petitioner's property, nor have they, at any point in tirne, locked or obstructed access to the premises as alleged. Th,: allegations, it is urged, are vague, unsubstantiated, and devoid of factual foundation. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. The l"arned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 and Z submits that the petitioner's claims are based purely on conjecture and surmise. He contends that the averments in the petition are unsupported by specific pleadings or particulars necessary Lo substantiate any cause of action. Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, trc submits, have no connection whatsoever with the alleged incident of locking the petitioner,s property by the police, and the allegations made against them are untenable and misconceived. Accordingly, he prays that the petition be dismissed with costs.

6. I have perused the record and considered the submissions of the partles. 7 - The specific contention of the petitioner is that his residential house property has been unlawfuily kept under rock -?"1 key lry the official respondents. However, upon a crgnc 1J examination of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner has not furnished any material particulars such as the date, manner, or authority under which the alleged locking of the premises occurred. The affidavit merely contains a bald assertion that the police have locked the premises,withoutreferencetoanysupportingdocumentation' proceeding, or independent evidence' B. The only reference made by the petitioner is in Paragraph No.13 of the affid.avit, wherein it is stated that a notice under Sections 96 and 160 0f the code of criminal Procedure' 1973 was issued in crime No.58 of 2017. However, this crime' as seen from the record, pertains to an allegation of trespass, and the caseispresentlypendingtrialbeforethecompetentcriminal court. At best, this reference d,oes not establish, even remotely, thatthepoliceortheofficialrespondentshaveplacedthe propertY under lock and keY' \ \ g.Fromthematerialavailableonrecord,itisclearthatthe petitioner has failed to produce any credible evidence or plead , ) anySpecificfactsdemonstratingthatrespondentNos.3to5,or anypoliceofficial,interferedwithhispropertyordeprivedhimof itspossession.Theallegationsarevagueanduncorroborated, 4 and the petition is bereft of essential factuar details necessarlr tu invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10' In the absence of any tangible or prima facie materiar substantiating the petitioner's craim, this court finds no justifiable cause for interference. The petitioner,s grievance rests solely on Lrnverified assertions, unsupported by evidence or legal 11' [n view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merit and lacking in material particulars. No ground is made out to warrant isr;uance of any direction against the respondents. 12' Acco'dingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shail be no order ar; to costs. Miscellzmeous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. t To, //TRUE COPYII Sd/-L.VIJAYA LA)(MI REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. One OC to SRt M LAyEEe KHAN, Advocate IOPUCI 2. ONE .C tO SRI MIRZA NISAR AHMAD BAIG, AdVOCAIE TOPUC] 3' Two ocs to Gp FoR HOME, High court for the state of retangana. [oUT] 4. Two OD Copies PVL PMK gr\l<. HIGH COURT DATED i:30110n025 ORDER WP.No.855 of 2018 c) t) I i t * IHE S c 5 'l t,R 2026 t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS zu[:-lu'