The High Court · 2025

2. The Commissioner Of Police, Office at Bassheerbagh, Hyderabad 3. The Station of Porice, Habeebnagar police Station, Habeebnagar Hyderabad 4. Smt Rani Bai , Wo Late Sri Ganesh Si h, Age 73 years, Occ: Housewife, Rlo 11-2$77 Habeebnagar,

5. Sri Surya Prakash singh @ chandu S/o Late Ganesh sinqh. Aqe 44 vears. occ: Housewife, No 11-2$77 Habeebnagar, Hyderabad - ...RESPONDENTS 'c6urt Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respond-ents No 3 summoning the petitioners and thereby threatening the petitioner to vacate and hgnd n1emile9 bearing municipal No 11-2-678 admeasuring Ac 320 Sq yards situated at Habeebnagar Hyderabad to respondents No a and-5 pending oisposal of the civil suit in o.S. No 1479 ot 2014 on the file of the XVil senior 6ivil judge city civil court hyderabad as illegal arbitrary contrary to settled principles law laid down by this Honble court and consequenily direct the respondents No 3 not to interfere u,'ith the possessions and enjoyment of the petitioners over the property ffi::fl"1r:T:i?:1,]fu"'-678 admeasurins Ac 320 Sq yards situated at 1 1 Petition 'rnder section 151. cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit firr-'d in suooort of the p.titioi, tiu i-igh court may be preased be l5:::d l? dl'::t the respondeni.-r.rl, i'.?;';"i:H"r" with the possession and en,oyment of the petitioners over the property oearing Municipar No 11-2-67g iL [J! o, is" ; rrni#;';;;;:. n ; [[;ff 'ii,', ,.a'' it', t Ji -Ii' i,'"'-:i rf "':i 18 2 Petition r:nder Section 151.cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in "rroort of the p"iti"i, itu'iiiit court may be pteased to a p"'" i .' w'e N; ;;; i oi e,l' p" n I lr "pTl* the affidavit fitr-.d ;n :; H:t i:i, i""?:l"Ti:ilfi,p r ""f;'J "r Counsel for thrr petitioner: SRI SRINIVAS CHOWDARY Counsel for thr: Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI D. Counsel for thr: Respondent No.4 & S: - - - - Court made the following: ORDER 'RADEE', ASST. Gp FOR HOME x. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.826 of 2()ta ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "...be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.3 summoning the petitioners and thereby threatening the petitioner to vacate and hand permises bearing municipal No 11-2-678 admeasuring Ac 32O Sq yards situated at Habeebnagar Hyderabad to respondents No 4 and 5 pending disposal of the civil Suit in O.S.No.1479 of 2Ol4 on the file of the XVII Senior Civil Judge City civil Court Hyderabad as illegal arbitrary contrary to settled principles law laid down by this Honble court and consequently direct the respondents No 3 not to interfere with the possessions and enjo5rment of the petitioners over the property bearing municipal No 11-2-678 admeasuring Ac.320 Sq.Yards situated at Habeebnagar Hyderabad and pass..."

2. None appears for the petitioners

3. Heard Mr. D.Pradeep, [earned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

4.I. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the presence of the petitioners was secured during the course of enquiry in Crime No.56 of 2Ol7 arrtd Crime No.229 of 20 17, both of which were registered against them. He further states that after completion of investigation in the said crimes, charge sheets were filed, rvhich culminated in C.C. No.875l of 2O2O and 2 C.C. No.2OiZ of 2018, respectively, on the file of the learned XVI Additional (lhief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

4.2. He further contends that the respondents/police authorities have never directed or coerced the petitioners to vacate the subject property, nor have they threatened to hand over the srrme to the unofficial respondents. [t is asserted that the allegations regarcling interference by the police in the petitioners' possession are unfounded and devoid of any factual basis. Acc,rrdingly, he prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

5. I ha',re perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record

6. The petitioners' principal contention is that. respondent No.3, a 1>olice offir-:iarl, lias been interfering with their lawful possession of the land described in the writ petition and has allegedly been threat-ening them to vacate the property and hand it over to respondent Nos.4 and 5. despite the pendency of a civil suit betvireen the par-ties concerning the sanale propert5l. The explanation offered on behalf. of the respondent police, however, indicates that criminal proceedinjs in respect of certain other namely, Crime Nos.56 of 2Ol7 and 229 of 2Ol7 are J pending against the petitioners, and that the involvement of the police is confined strictly to those proceedings. The police authorities deny any interference in the civil dispute or in the petitioners' possession over the property.

6.1. Having regard to the rival contentions, this Court observes that the grievance of the petitioners pertains essentially to possession and enjoyment of immovable property, which is civil in nature. The allegations of police interference, even if assumed to be correct, do not disclose any lawful basis for police intervention in what is predominantly a private property dispute between the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 and 5.

7. The role of the police, in such circumstances, is limited to investigating cognizable offences in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, L973, and not to \ t enforcing or facilitating possession in civil matters. It is a well- I settled principle that civil rights of parties over immovable I property must be adjudicated by civil courts, and the police have no authority to involve themselves in such disputes unless I directed by a competent court or required for maintenance of public order. J3 4 € 4

8. In vievr of the above, and having regard to the petitioner's apprehension that the police may interfere rvith their possession, it is hereby directed that respondent No.3, as well as all other police authorities concerned, shall refrain from interfering with the petitioners' possession over the property mentioned in the writ petitio:e, or from involving themselves in any civil dispute between thr: parties.

9. However, it is macle clear that this clirection shall not preclude ttre police atrthorities from taking anv action strictly in accordance: u,ith law and b), follovving due process, in relation to any criminal proceedings lau,fully pending or arising in future. 1O. With the above clarification and direction, ttris writ petition is dispose<l of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if an1', shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/.A. JAYASREE I rANr REGISTRAR I SECTION OFFICER \ To, 1 2 3. 4. 5. 6. BS q*a HIGH COUIRT DATED:30r/1 A12025 ORDER WP.No.826 of 2018 .* o..l THE s 'i c.) * 1 6 trAR A6 * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOU-T COSTS ore) alt,l !lt,