fVlohd.Yaseen v. The State of Talangana, Rep

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ lmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 and his sub-ordinates not to inte- )re in civil matter of the petitioner land an extent of Ac.42-28 guntas in survey N r .21 and 22 situated at Porandla Village, [Vlaheshwaram: f\ilandal, R.R.District penrl rg writ petition. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WVMP. NO: 2882 oF 20141 Between: Subhash Kapoor, S/o. Late Bankat Prasad, Occupation Bus r i:ss, aged about 54 years, Ftioo.14-1 1-'1068, Beerbanbagh, Shainayath Gunj, Hyder :rbad. - AND 1 Mohd.Yaseen, S/o Agriculture, Rl/o. Rangareddy District . Late Mohd. Sharifuddin, Age 32 years, Occupation H.No.1-73, Porandla Village, [Vlah rshwaram [r/bndal, ...VACATE S'I' \Y PETITIONERYR4 ... RESPONDENT 1. The State of Talangana, Rep. by its Principal Secr Secretariat, Hyderabad_ WRIT PETITIONER ,tary, Home Dept.,

2. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Rangareddy D s 3. The Station House Officer, l\rlaheshwaram Police { Rangareddy District. 'rict tation, Cyberabad, ...RESPONDETI .S/RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr;r the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mz I the interim ORDER passed in WP No. 29438 of 2014 dated 2) mstances stated in be pleased vacate 09-2014. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI GANDYADAPU RAJESHAM Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : SRt B.SRINIVAS, ASt T.Gp FOR HOME W.P.No.15846 OF 2014 Between:

1. Smt.Vazeer Bee, (died) per LRs 2&3

2. Mohd. Shabuddin S/o. late Mohd. Sharifuddin, Age 35 years, Occupation Agriculture, Rl/o. H.No.1-73, Porandla Village, Maheshwaram i,4andal, Rangareddy District.

3. Mohd. Yaseen S/o. late Mohd. Sharifuddin, Age 33 years, Occupation Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-73, Porandla Village, ti/aheshwaram Mandal, Rangareddy District. Petitioners 2and3 are brought on record as LRs of deceased 1st petitioner as per C.O. dt.27-12-14 in WPMP 32254 ot 14. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Talangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 J The Station House Officer, [\i'laheshwaram Police Station, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District. Subhash Kapoor, S/o. Late Bankat Prasad, Occupation Business, aged about 54 years, Ryoo.14-1 1-1068, Beerbanbagh, Shainayath Gunj, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the 2nd respondent interfering into civil matter of the petitioner land an extent of Ac.42-28 guntas in survey No.21 and 22 situated at Porandla-Village, IVaheshwaram-Mandal, R.R.District and the same is illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice and violation of fundamental rights and declare the same without jurisdiction and consequent direction direct the respondent No.2 not to interfere in civil matter of the petitioner land an extenI of Ac.42-28 guntas in survey No.2'l and 22 situated at Porand la-Village, Ma heshwara m-Ma nd al, R.R.District. t.A. NO: 2 OF 2014(WPMP. N O:21354 OF 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour may be pleased to receive the additional material paper as per list of material pe rer. l.A. NO: 1OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 1 9626 0F 2014) Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the cir umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou 1 may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 not to interfere in civil matter of t e petitioner land an extent of 4c.42-28 guntas in survey No.2'l and 22 situateri at porand Ia:village, Maheshwaram:lMandal, R.R.District pending writ petition in tr , interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI GANDYADAPU RAJESHAII Counsel for the Respondents No.'l&2 : GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY TYRIT PETITION N0.29438 of 2AL4 DATE: 05.12. 2o25 Between: Mohd. Yaseen AND The State of Telangala Rep by its Principal Secretar5z, Home Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad & three others . . . Petitioner . . . Respondents WRIT PETITION No.15846 of2Ot4 Between: Smt. Vazeer Bee and two others ..Petitioners AND The State of Telangana Rep by its Principal Secretar5z, Home Affairs, Secretariat, Hyderabad & two others ..Respondents - COMMON ORDER The Wdt Petition No 15846 of 2Ol4 is hied seeking the following reliet "...to issue al order or direction, more particuiarly in the nature of Writ of Malda:nus declare the action of the 2nd respondent interfering into civil matter of the petitioner land 2 VRK& J .tP 29438 k t5846 2014 an extent of Ac.42-28 guntas in survey Nos situated at Poraldla Vil1age, Maheshwar r R-R.District and tl.e same is illegal, arbitrary principles of natura,l justice and violation of rights ald declare the same without juris conseolent direction direct the respondenl l interfere in civil matter of the petitioner land Ac.42-28 guntas in survey Nos.21 ar'd 22 Poranclla Viltage, M aheshrr,'aram Mandal, R. R. Di s 21 and 22 ,:r Mandal, md against rndamental liction ald o.2 not to n ex-tent of situated at rict..."

2. The Writ Petition No. 29438 of 2Ol+ is iled seeking the following relief "... to issue an order or direction, more 1> t-lle natnre of Writ of Mandamus declare tlle ir 2nd respondent not taking any disciplinary rr the respondent No.3 on the complaints dated C the petrtioner is i1lega1, arbitrary and conseqr direct the respondent No.3 not to interfere in c the petitioner lald an extent of Lc.42-28 gurl Nos.2 1 and 22 situated at Porandla-Vi1lage, Iv r Manclal. R.R. Dislrict and pass..." rticularly in Lction of the tion against i.O9.2014 of nt direction r.i1 matter of ls in survey heshwaram-

3. Heard Sri Gandyadapu Rajesham, iearns I counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, lr arned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for r -'spondent Nos. I to 3 in W P.No.29438 of 2Ol4 and appearitr r; for respondent Nos.l and 2 in W.P.No.l5a46 of 2014.

4. This Court uide order dated 24.06.2014 n W.P.No. 15846 of 2014, passed a detailed order in W.P.M.P.),:.19626 of 2Ot4 I VRKR. J wP 2943E & t5E46 20t4 (I.A.No.l of 2Ol4), restraining respondent No.2 (SHO) in 3 interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent. The said interim order is extracted here under:- "The petitioner, a 63-year-old agriculturist, claims nght, title and interest in the a.forementioned land, on the strength ald basis of a grft deed said to have been executed in her favour on 27.10.1978 by one Sri Mohd. Sharfuddrn, S/o Sri Shahabuddin. It is not in dispute that one Sri Khaja Moinuddin was recorded as the pattadar over the land situated in Survey Nos. 21 and 22 of Porandla Village as per the revenue records, such as Sethwar, Wasool Baqui of Porandla Village for the year 1357 Fasli. As per the Khasra Pahani of 1954-55, the land is recorded as patta land in the name of Sri Khaja Moinuddin and the names of Sri Nagula Anthaiai arrd others are recorded in Column No. 1 1 as occupants and cultivators in the capacity of protected tenants. Sri Mohd. Sharfuddin, who has gifted the property to the petitioner, clarmed to be the brother of Sri Khaja Moinuddin. As Sri Khala Moinuddin has no children, Sri Mohd. Sharfuddin claims to have succeeded to tJ.e estate of Sri Khaja Moinuddin. One Sri Ahmed Shareef, S/o Sri Modh.. Badsha Shareef, who does not normally reside at resident of Poraldla Village but is Hyderabad City, parallelly clarmed as a legal heir of the original pattadar Sri Khaja Moinuddin and secured a succession certificate from the Tahsildar, lbrahimpatnam on 17.O4.1964, but however, he was not in possession arrd enjoyment over the said land but the land was in possession of the protected tenants alrd their legal heirs. it is a.lso revealed that Sri Ahmed Shareef did not return to India after he left for London during 1984, but the GPA holder of Sri Ahmed Shareef, namely Sri Mohd. Mahboob Shareef @ Amjad has executed two registered sale deeds during 1984 a.lie- ng ttre land in Survey \ -* '-rr 4 VRKR. J ,\ , 29438 & 15846 2014 - Nos. 21 and 22 in favour of the 3rd respondent ar < Therefore, there is any amount of controversy to I and interest of the respective parties wit}. regard t question. One has also to ascertain as to whether tL of Sri Mohd. Ahmed Shareef, namely Sri Mohd. Ma: has execrrted the two sale deeds prior to the dearl Shareef at l,ondon or thereafter. The legal principle is fairly very well-settled. A GPA holder will have tlr, deat with the estate of the principal so long as th alive. With the death of the principal, his consti -r power to deal with the estate a.lso ceases. Therefor,: the fundamental question that is required to trc when did Sri Ahmed Shareef died in London and r the two registered sale deeds, which have been e:l GPA holder, were prior to his death or afterwarj registererl sale deeds were executed by the GPA hc death of *re principal, namely Sri Ahmed Shareei, t his brother. e right, title the land in : GPA holder roob Shareef ,f Sri Ahmed r this regard authorit]'to principal is ted attomey the hrst and rddressed is ; to whether :uted by his r. [f the two der after the rey will be of no avail. Per contra, the petitioner is claiming to be of the land in question from 1991 onwards and : same. Therefore, the balalce of convenience ceriai present adwised, in favour of the writ petitioner, blrt of the 3rd respondent or his brother. The 3rd res; brother cannot approach the police at Ibrat i Ma-heshu'aram or Porandla and start causing ar disturbance to the possession of the petidoner :uL, cultivate the lands in question if she is in possessi,) 1 possessron .ltivating the ly lies, as at :rot in favour ndcnt or his npatnam or , amount of her right to thereof. Therefore, the 2nd respondent Station House () icer and his men are restrained from interfering in any manne: ',vith the civil disputes between the petitioner on the one hanrl and the 3rd respondent and his brother on the other." 5 VRK& J wP 29438 & t5U6 2014

5. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the original petitioner, Smt. Vazeer Bee, passed away, and her legal heirs were brought on record as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.

6. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that despite the said detailed interim order dated

24.06.2014 passed in W.P.M.P.No.L9626 of 2014, the police were not giving effect to the said interim order on the ground that the said Writ Petition got abated by virtue of the death of said Vazeer Bee. Further, though it was clarified that upon the death of the said Y az.eer Bee, the interim order would continue to remain operative, the police were not ready to accept the said submission and thereby refused to implement the same

7. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that under the aforesaid circumstalces, the petitioners were constrained to file another writ petition uide W.P.No.29438 of 2Ol4 and this Court once again passed interim orders restraining the police from interfering into the civil disputes.

8. Counter affidavits were filed by the Station House Officer (SHO) in both the writ petitions, making similar averments particularly disputing the allegation made by the petitioners that the police interfered in the civil disputes. Further, the 6 VRK& J wP 294i8 & 15846 2014 SHO also specifically stated that upon the comtr'l the unofhcial respondent before the Mahe s Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, 4 crimrr rint lodged by vararn Police a-l cases were registered against the sole petitioner in W.P.No.2 )438 of 2014. Ultimately, out of the said 4 cases registered by the police against him, 3 cases i.e., C.C.Nos.467 of 2015, l zO ald 541 of 2016, ended in acquittal on 22.02.2019, O1 ll.2O24 and 17 .O3.2023 respectively. However, in one case . :., C.C.No.487 of 2015, the charges framed against the petitiorl r were proved and he was found guilty thereby imposing hne r,r I h Rs.1,000/-. The learned counsel for the petitioners has sttt ,:d across the bar that upon hling the appeal against the judg nent made in connection with C.C.No .487 of 2O 15, the sarne t as allowed by the Appellate Court.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner cate5 rrically stated that all the cases in which the sole petitioner ir ri/.P.No.29438 of 2Ol4 was implicated were in respect of the ver- same subject matter, which is essentially "Civil in Nature".

10. In paragraph No.10 of the counter iled by the Police/respondent No.3 in W.P.No.29438 o 2014, it is categorically stated that mere registration of the bove criminal cases on the complaint made by unofficial r:jpondent and / -/ ./ - I i i 7 VRK& J wP 29418 & 15845 2014 proceeding with the investigation therein, does not arnount to interference by police in civil disputes, as alleged by the petitioners. It is further stated that the writ petitions were filed with an intention to escape from the offences and to divert the attention of the investigating agency in proceeding with the investigation of the said cases.

11. It is settled law that the police authorities cannot interfere in purely civil disputes and the limited grievance raised by the petitioners in both the writ petitions is to the effect that the police were interfering in civil disputes.

12. Having regard to the aforesaid factual background and in the light of the specific stand taken by the police authorities in the counter affrdavit, this Court deems it necessar5r to reiterate and place a clear restriction on the exercise of police powers in matters which are essentially civil in nature. The police authorities shall confine themselves strictly to the performance of their statutory duties and shall not summon, thereafter, coerce or otherwise interfere with the petitioners in relation to disputes of a purely civil character, unless the facts disclosed independently constitute a cognizable offence warranting action in accordance with law. Any action in deviation thereof shall not be countenanced. 8 VRKR, J sI 29438 & 15846 20t4

13. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposec of in terms of the interim order dated 24.06.2014 passed in V/ P.No.15846 of 2014 and interim order dated 26.O9.2O passed W.P.No.29438 of 2014. There shall be no order il , to costs. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if an ,, shall stand closed Sd/.A.Ti l.EENIVASA REDDY ASSI iTANT REGISTRAR r9 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, '1 . The Principal Secretary, State of Talangana, Home Dept Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Rangareddy t) ';trict 3. The Station House Officer, Maheshwaram Police Statiort Cyberabad, Rangareddy District.

4. One CC to SRI GANDYADAPU RAJESHAM, Advocate IPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State o' .'elangana. One CC to SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR, Advocate. [OP - ]l Two CD Copies. A f) 7 [OUT] BSK b ( HIGH COURT VRKR,J DATED:0511212025 .\ HE Ii AiE 3 1[ tt] 202[ * cES F, i;J ,;) :> * COMMON ORDER WP.No.29438 & 15846 ot 2014 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS L 1 q "/