The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ALMULA VINAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents No.'1, 7 &8: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No. 2 to 6: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICD T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 11O66 f 202s ORDER Heard learned counsel for thg petitioner tn Lhe morning session and on the matter passed over, there is no rcprcsentation on behalf of the petitioner in the second call

2. Heard learned Government plepder for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 7 & 8, learned (overnment pleader for Home appearing lor thc official responden( Nos.2 to 6, and with thc consen[ of thc learned counsel appearing for respectivc parties, thc Writ Pctition is taken up for disposal ai admission stage . 3 Having regard to the manner of disposal of the writ petition .rnd the nature of lis involved, this Co rt is of the view that noticc

1., to unoflicial rcspondent No.9 is not qecessary for adjudication of thc prcsent Writ Pctition

4. 'lhe petitioner by the present Writ petition had sought to declarc the action of respondcnt Nos.4 to 8 in frequently calling and pressurizing him to settlc the disp[tcs with the 9rh respondent ancl handover possession of agricultural propert_v admeasuring Acre 1.23 guntas in survey No.llO2/2 and Acre 1.06 guntas in survey No.1 103/A, in all admcasuring] Acres 2.29 guntas situated at n trnakur Village, Metpally Mandal; Jagitial District,to thc 9,h 2 respondenL, thereby inlcrfering in civil disputcs, lr'hich action of the responclen ts-au tho rities it is contended as ilicgal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice, u,ilh a consequential direction to respondent wor.+ to 8 not to interferc in civil disputes.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 6 rvould submit that the petitioner had approachccl the respondcnLs.authoritics and lodgcd zr complaint on \4.O2.2025, that the respondenls after causing preliminary enquiry to vcrifl, the correctness of the contents of the complaint and having found the said complaint is in rc [ation to a civi] dispute, havc closed the said complaint on 25.O2.2025 as "civil in nature"; ancl that the rcspondents- authoritrc s on closing the aforesaid r:onrplaint have trlso issucd notice tc thc I)e titioner.

6. Learncd (ior.crnmcnt Pleadcr lor Home lurllrer submits that except causing cnquiry into the aforesaid complaint lodged by the petitioner, tlrc authorities are not interfering in civil ciisputes.

7. karnr:d Government Pleader for Revenuc appearing for respondent Nos. 1,7 & 8 has placed before this Court written instructions uncler the signaturc of the 8d, respon(lent, whereby it is stated that the 9th rcspondent herein had filed a ,:ivil suit against the petitioncr herern uide O.S.No. 12612022; and 1l.re said suit was decreed in lavour o[ the 9tt, respondent on 12.12.2023, n,hereby the 3 9th respondent has been declared as owner of the suit schedule propcrly admeasuring Acres 2.29 guntas.

8. Lcarned Government Pleader fdr Revenue further submits that on the compctent Court of Civil jurisdiction passing the judgment and decree in OS.No. 12612P22, the 9th respondent had approached the responden ts-authcirities and submitted a representation to record his name in tLle revenue records.

9. tt is also submitted by the learned Governmenr Pleader for Revenuc that the a u thori tie s.arfter verifying the record and having found thal thcrc is no inlerim order against the judgment in OS. No. I 26/ 2O22, rccommended for rqcording the name of thc 9th respondent in revenue records namell Dharani/Bhu Bharathi in respect of the suit schedule property.

10. Learncd Government Pleader for Revenue further submits \ that thc respondcnts-au tho ritie s judgmcnt in OS.No. 126l'2022. u." i,ot interfering in thc civil implementing the except disputes as bcing claimed by the petitioner. I 1. 'lhc aforesaid submissions madd by the learned Government Pleaders appearing for the respective pBrties are placcd on record.

12. Having regard to the fact thal thc petitioner having suffercd a judgmcnt and decrec in OS.No. 12612q22, d1.12.12.2023, and as it I I I I 4 is not shorn,n to this Court ol the petitioncr availing further remedies against the said judgment and decree, thrs Court is of the view that thc prcsent Writ Pctition as filcd allegirr;1 interfercnce by the respondenls-aurhorities in the civil disputes, thereby warranting zrction, restraining the said authoritics lrom interfering in civil disputes, does not appeal to this Court tirr being accepted as a valid clarm-

13. Accorciingly, thc Writ Pctition as filcd is do,oid of merit and is dismissed. No order as to cost s. l4 Consr:<prently, miscellancous petitions, il artr, pencling shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \,'] T ,r, ON OFFICER SEC To 1. One CC to SRI ALMULA VINAY KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. touTl

4. Two CD Copies MP GJP HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 510412025 ORDER WP.No.11066 of 2025 \ t ,'=1:::=::: ,/ ,^.(i '" ' '' IAT e 21 rlJE 26 ((\ t' i, i \ t){:,c;,4.1-.. , DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT. COSTS I C, I 4 ,