Mohd. Abdul Kareem v. 1. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI J.VIJAY KUMAR GOUD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.I TO 4: SRI SRIDHAR BHUVANAGIRI, Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S TO 8: - The Court made the following: ORDER AGP FOR HOME THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAI{ITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2O187 of 2O14 ORDER: This Writ Petition is liled under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "...to issue a wit or order more partia,tlarly one in the nnfrre of urit of mandamus declaring the adion of respond,ent No.4 at the instigation of respondent Nos.S to 8 in interfering uith tlrc peaecful possession and enjoym.ent of tle petitioner ouer the petitioner propertg i-e., all that the proprtg beaing plot Ii{o.4OS, in Block No.H, Suruey No.134/2O admea.suring 298.54 sq.gards, situated at Meersagar hamlet of $ailardeupalty Village, Rajend"ranagar Mandal, Rangareddg Dbtrid,, in ciuil disputes which dispute wa.s ceclsed in O.S.No.26 of 2O14 on the file of Junior Ciuil Judge-cum-XW Metropnlitan Magbtrate, Cgberabad at Rajendranaga4 Rangareddg Dfrstrict, as ilLe.gal, arbitrary, unjust and also against Article 30O-A of Crrnstitrttion of India and consequential directions to the respondent Nos.4 to 8 rnt to interfere with the peaceful possession anL enjognent of tLrc petitioner ouer the petitioner propefu Le., all tlnt the propertg beaing plot No.405, in Block No.H, &rueu No.134/2O, admeasurtng 298-54 sq.gards, sifinted at Meersagar lwnlet of Mailardeupally Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Rangareddy District and pass..... "

2. Heard Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagrri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the material available on record.

3. When the matter is taken up for consideration on l \

07.LO.2O25, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the matter was directed to be listed on,P.LO.2O2s under the I 1 i 2 caption oFor Dismissal". Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.

4. Lear:red Assistant Government pleader for Home, basing on the instmctions received from respondent No.4-police authorities, informed this Court that upon receipt of the private complaint on the file of vIII Metropolitan Magistrate, cyberabad, the police have registered a case in crime No.22z of 2014, which was already concluded and the case was closed as "lack of evidence,,.

5. In flre light of the said development, this court is of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner no longer survives for adjudication. 6- Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous. However, it is open to the petitioner, if so advised, to pursue any otJrer remedy available in law questioning the linal report. Th,ere shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/.A.S REENIVASA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To

1. One C;C to SRI J.VIJAY KUMAR GOUD, 2. Two C;Cs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the Hyderabad. TOUTI

3. Two GD Copies PSK. PMK SECTION OFFICER of Telangana, at I HIGH COURT DATED::1011012025 ORDER WP.No.120187 of 2014 SIA r1 cl:;" .{ o t) $ $ ttB ut[6 * I a+ + DISMISSiING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS b {ao