Mohammed v. 1. The State of Telangana

10.Mr. Mohammed Anwar, S/o. Mohammed Afzal, aged about 54 Yearsa^O^c^9 ' '" iiriin".., ruo. H.No.5-z-5+0' Nampally, flYderabad' Telangana - 59q991' nJJinir office at H.No.11-5-388 to 39/, Ofposite Niloufer Cafe, Red Hills, Hyderlbad, Telangana - 500004.

11.Mr. Mohammed Mubbashir, S/o. Mohammed Anwar, aged aboit.32 years' " iji,..'er.i""si, nyo. H.No.5-7-540, Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana - ,7 50o0o1,holdilgofficeatH.No.11-5-338to3g2,oppositeNilouferCafe,Red Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana 500004' ...RESPONDENTS Petition unde r Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances statr:d in the affidavit filed therewith' the: High Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction one in the nature oF writ of mandamus or any other appropr ?te n/rit, order or direction, holding that the action of the RespondentsNo'4and5ininterferingWiththepossessic|rlofpetitionerprivate property, in respect of the property in the name and style of M/s Hotel Rainbow Tower bearing Hou;e No. 8-2712 (old)'1 1-208 (new)' on Plot No '1 ' admeasuring 435 Square yards, Falling in Sy.No 68l , with Plinth area of 3915 Sq feet on the ground floor, Plinth area of 3915 Sq feet on the First floor and Plinth area of 3915Sq,feetontlleThirdf|oor.totalbuiltUpareallT45Sq.feet,situatedat NH-7, l\,4ain Road Siddanthr, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy' Telangana' and attemplingtodis;,ossessthePetitioner,beingincolusionWithunofficial RespondentsandpressurizingthePetitionerforprivates€:t:lementandmisusing their official powers being police officials, is illegal, arbitrary, malicious, politically motivated, against lhe principles of natural justice and fair prlay, besides violative of Articles 14,'19.. 21 and 300-4 of constitution of lndia and this Honourable court may be pleas.ed tr> direct the Respondent No.4 and 5 not interfering in the civil dispute and compelling the Petitioner to come for Private settlement. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition undcr section 151 CPC praying that in the: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cc,Lrt may be pleased to direct the Respond rnt No.4 and 5 not to interfere into civil disputes between the petitioner and unofficial respondents during the pendent;y of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHAMMAD NASEER PASHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 5: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI HARSHEET REDDY LAW FIRM The Court made the following: ORDER w i I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.12702 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, and Sri Harsheet Reddy Law Firm, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage and the nature of /rs involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 11 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is the owner of the property bearing Door No.8-27 12 (old), 11-208 (new) on Plot No.l admeasuring 435 square yards in Sy.No.6B1 having total built up area of 17745 square feet consisting of ground, first and second floors situated at National Highway No.7, Main Road, Siddanthi, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the petitioner is running a hotel in the name and style of "Hotel Rainbow Tower"; and that the respondents-authorities, in particular respondent Nos.3 to 5, are seeking to dispossess the petitioner from the said property without any basis or 2 E\' sanction of iaw at the behest of unofticial respondents herein, though he is the owner of the subject propety.

4. Per ccntra, learned Government pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 wourd submit that tne petitioner, though the original lwner of the property, had sold the same in favour of the unofficial respondents under a registered sare deed and derivered possession o'the subject property as per the coven,rnts of the said sale and as such the petitioner cannot claim to be the owner of the property any more. 5, Learned Government pleader further s;ubmits that the 6th responder,t had approached the respondents-authorities and lodged a complaint on 19.04.2025 against the petitioner anj the respondents_ authorities based on the aforesaid complaint have reqistered a case vide Crime No.37() of 2025 dt.I9.04.2025 under Section:; 3Zg(4), 324(4), 318(4) and 3l;1(2) of BNS, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1 along with one Mohd.Soheb, who is arrayed as accr:sed No.2.

6. Learnecl Government pleader further submits th,et the respondents_ authorities are conducting investigation into the aforesaid crime registered against the petitioner and expect causing investigation into the aforesaid crime, the respondents-a uthorities are not Interfering in the civil dispute.

7. I have taken note of the respective contentions urr,Jed. w 3

8. Though the petitioner claims to be owner of the subject property, the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the unofficial respondents herein clearly indicate the petitioner having parted with his i title to the subject property, under a registered sale deed way back in the year 2019 and as such it is not open for him to claim himself to be the owner of the subject property any further.

9. Further, though it is contended on behalf of the petitioner of he paying certain amounts monthly to the unofficial respondents herein, the said payments at the most can be considered as towards the rent for occupying the subject property by the petitioner or a share to the owner for allowing them to run the hotel in the said premises. It is settled position of law, a tenant cannot question the title of the owner.

10. In view of the above and taking note of the fact that based on the complaint made by the unofficial respondents herein, the respondents- authorities having registered a case vide Crime No.370 of 2025 dt.19.04.2025, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are to be directed to conduct investigation into the aforesaid crime and take further action strictly in accordance with law.

11. Subject to above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. I I 4

12.Itishowevermadeclearthattheobservationsmadehereinare only for the purpose of adjudication of this case and rvill not have any bearing on the civil dispute that may exist between the parties' l3.Miscellan(]ouspetitions,ifany,pendinginthisrlrritpetitionShall stand closed //TRUE COPY// so/'T'vlJAY KUMAR ?EPUTY REGISTR J SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary' Home Department' Secretariill' Hyderabad' State o Telangana t

2. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Comnrissionerate' Telangana State

3. The Asst. Ccmmissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate' at Shamshabad

4. The Station House Officer, P S RGIA, at Shamshabad' 5. The Sub lnspector of Police, P S RGIA' at Shamshabad 6. One CC to SRI MOHATVTUAD NASEER PASHA' Advooate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI HARSHEET REDDY LAW FlRlVl' Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the Sitate of Telangana at Hyderabad [()UT]

9. Two CD CoPies BSR HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 CC TODAY ( o 1l-i E t4t' 2I APn ?wi lO 0 ./. .< .r. i ;.". ... ,:.;5..,,. :.. ORDER WP.No.12702 of 2025 I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS 0 \'t\D -/'/