Smt. . Bompelly Eevalhir Wo. Chenna Rao v. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direclion rnore particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ or direction to the respondent authorities by declaring the action of respondent authorities in not taking action on the complainant submifted by the petitioner in respect of fraud cord by the respondent No. 4 aM 5 in creating gift deed vide document No. 44122 before the Tahsildar and Sub-Registrar, Parvathgiri in Dharani portal Dt. 1710112022 against the link document No. 7161/2O16 Dt. 3/6/20'16 executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 4 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also against the principres of naturar justice and consequenfly direct the respondents authorities to take action as per law on the complaint submitted by the petitioner 21lo2t2o2s in respect of fraud committed by the respondent No. 4 and 5 in creating gift deed vide document No. 44122 before the Tahsildar and sub- Registrar, Parvatheiri in Dharani portar Dt. 17to112022 against the link document No. 7161/2016 Dt-3r6r2o16 executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 4. NO:1 F 2025 Petition under section 15'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents authorities to take action as per law on the complaint submitted by the petitioner 211o2r202s in respect of fraud committed by the respondent No. 4 and 5 in creating gift deed vide document No. 44t22 before the Tahsildar and Sub- Registrar, Parvathgiri in Dharani portal Dt. 171o1t2o22 against the link document No. 716'l12016 Dr.31612016 executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No. 4. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. SALEEM Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.l to 3: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5:---- The Court made the following: ORDER -'i,::s;;; THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE T. VITTOD K('MAR .- W.P.No. 92Ol of 2ol25 ( ORDER Heard iearned Counsel for the petiLioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the olficial respondent Nos.1 to 3, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. Having regard to the nature of ftls involved in the Writ Petition and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unoff-rcial respondent Nos.4 & 5 is not necessar5r for adjudication of the present Writ petition.

3. The case o[ the petitioner, in brief, is that the 4th respondent had purchased the land to an extent of Acre 0.20 guntas from her in the year 2Ot6, and gifted the said land in favour of the 5fr respondent on 17 .O | .2022 by playing fraud and altering .the boundaries.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that on the basis of the Gift Deed executed by the 4fr respondent in favour of the 56 respondent, the 5rh respondent is interfering with the peaceful possession and cnjoyment of the petitioner over tl,re remaining extent ol land, a[ter having sold Acre O.2O guntas to the 4th \ ,/i 2 respondent, the petitioner had approached the respondents- authorities ald gave a complaint on 2L.O2.2O25; and ttrat in spite of the petitioner submitting the aforesaid complaint/ representation, no action is taken. Hcnce, the present Writ Petition.

5. Per contra, learned Governmcnt Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of oflicial respondents would submit that on receiving the aforesaid complaint, the authorities have caused preliminar5r enquiry, which revealed existence of civil dispute between the petitioner and unofficial respondents herein, and thus, the authorities have closed the said complaint as 'civil in nature'.

6. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner had sold land to an extent of Acre O.20 guntas, out of total extent of Acre 1.16 guntas, in favour of the 4m respondent. The petitioner claims that the 4tr respondent thereafter executing a Gift Deed in favour of the Sth respondent on LZ .O1.2O22, and on the basis of the said Gitt Deed, the 5e respondent is allegedly interfering with the petitioner's possession ovbr the remaining extent of land, cvcn though the land sold by her to the 4tt' respondent has been used for construction of a water tank by the Government. I 't';:r{i i ' . .t) 3

8. The above fact would reveal that ttre dispute between the petitioner and tJ:e unoflrcial respondents is one of identification and localization of the land sold by the petitioner to the 4ft respondent, who in turn gifted the same to the 5d respondent. g. However, it is not shown to this Court of the petitioner availing any civil remedy against the unjust and illegal interftrence by the 5e respondent with her possession over the remaining extent of land, and on the other hand, after a lapse of three years from tlre execution of the alteged Gift Deed in the year 2022, t}re peLitioner had lodged a complaint on 21.O2.2025 claiming respondents No.4 & 5 playing fraud on her.

10. Of late, it is noticed that in respect of civil disputes the parties are seeking to give cloak of criminal offence and approaching the respondents-authorities by lodging a complaint and thereafter hling writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such practice of giving criminal colour to a civil dispute has been deprecated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in tlle decisions of Paramjeet B@tro us State OJ Uttarvkhdnd & Orst, Usha Chakrabortg vs Stofe Of West BengoP and in the recent I '(zor:) rr tc ozr 2 Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) 5865 of 2022. dt.30.O1-2023 I 4 ,"sg5rg't decision of Sged. Yaseer lbrahln v. S;tdte o! llttar prad.esh & Anr.3

11. Since, in the facts of the present case as noted hereinabove, the petitioner having not taken any steps by approaching the concerned Civil Court against the alleged interference by respondent Nos.4 & 5 into her property and approaching the respondents-authorities by lodging a complaint on 21.02.0225, and thereafter f,rling the present Writ Petition ctaiming inaction on the part of the authorities, in the considered view of this Court, cannot be permitted.

12. However, taking note of the fact that the respondents- authorities having taken action on the aforcsaid complaint by conducting preliminary enquiry and closing thc same as 'civil in nature', this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition is not mainrainable and petitioner should be relegatcd to avail the remedies open to him in law.

13. Granting liberty as noted hereinabove. rhe Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. t \ Criminal Appeal No 2gS of 2022, dt.28.O2.2O22 r I I I i I I 5 I t4. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shsll ,/ stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.L.LAKSHMI DEPUTY EG U SECTION OFFTCER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Warangal District. 3. The Station House Offrcer, Police Station Parvathagiri, Warangal District. 4. One CC to Sri M. Saleem, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUfl TJ LS

6. Two CD Copies & I HIGH COURT DATED:2710312025 ORDER WP.No.9201 of 2025 'iHE STA / ( Q^ Y 3- ?E npn zlzl (( i ! * SPA r gtll\l ',. DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ r')\ 0' rr\