1. Smt.G.Pooja Devi Wo G.Prasanna Kumar v. 1. The State of Telangana

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in / the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession of the land in Sy.No.100/B, to an extent of Ac.03-16 guntas, situated at Nizampet Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Rangareddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 16, 19 and 300-A of Constitution of lndia, consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession of the land in Sy.No.100/8, to an extent of Ac.03-'16 guntas, situated at Nizampet Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Rangareddy District in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1 OF 201s(WPMP. NO: s4339 OF 2015) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful possession of the land in Sy. No. 100/9, to an extent of Ac. 03-16 guntas, situated at Nizampet Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above writ petition, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI U. RAMANJANEYT LU Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: SRI SRIDHAR BHUVANAGIRI, AGP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondents No.s & 6: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.7 & 8: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.42132 of 2O15 ORDER: This Writ Petition is liled under Anicle 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: "...to issue a Wit or order or direction more particriarlg orLe in th-e nature of Writ of Certioran to coll for the reards pertainhg to the common order dated 21.11.2015 passed in LA.No. 11 of 2O15 in S.EIYo.IO of 2O08 passed bg *E 2"d respondent Autlroritg and declare tle same as arbitrary illegal erroneous exerci.se of jurisdiction and uiolatiue of prinaples of tle naitral justice and ansequentlg set a.sid.e the same and to pass..."

2. Heard Sri U. Ramanjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. lrarned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No. I is the General Power of Attorney (for short "GPA") holder of G.Prasanna Kumar, who is the absolute owrrer and possessor of the open plots to an extent of Ac.03.16 guntas in Survey No. 100/8, situated at Nizampet village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Rangareddy District having been acquired through various registered sale deeds.

4. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the police are unnecessarily interfering into civil disputes. On the other hand, I I 2 respondent No.4 filed a counter aflidavit disclosing that several civil disputes have arisen between the petitioners and the unollicial respondents, resulting in frling of suits ald criminal complaints against each other by the petitioners and certain unollicial respondents.

5. The leamed Assistant Government Pleader for Home, placed reliance on the counter filed by respondent No.4, wherein it has been categorically stated that except conducting investigation into the crimes registered in relation to the subject propert5r, the police have not interfered in civil disputes. It is further averred that the role of police has been limited to investigation of cognizable offences, visitation of the scene of offence and maintenance of law and order. The allegation of interference in civil disputes is therefore unfounded.

6. Paragraph No.7 of tle counter allidavit filed by ttre respondent No.4 specifically clarihes that the police were discharging their legitimate duties in conducting the investigation, and the same cannot be treated as interfering in- civil ciisputes and their actions were conlined only to law and order maintenance in the locality.

7. In view of the above submissions and categorical stand taken by the respondent No.4 in his counter affidavit, that police never interfered in civil disputes this court is of the considered opinion t].at no further orders are warranted in this Writ petition as the statement of ./ -/ 3 respondent No.4 has been duly recorded. Accordingly this Writ perition is disposed of without expressing anything on the merits of the case. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/: K. BHAVANI SWAMY AsslsTANT REGISTRAR SECTI,fi OFFIcER /

7. B.

9. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Rangareddy District. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, KPHB.; Colony, Kukatpally, Rangareddy District. The Station House Officer, KPHB., Kukatpally, Rangareddy District. The Revenue Divisional Offrcer, Malkajgiri, Division, Rangareddy District. The Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, Rangareddy District. One CC to SRI U. RAMANJANEYULU, Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] To \ Ir 10 Two CD Copies MP 'T,- dq-'_ I HIGH COURT I DATED: 1 810912025 TAr.1 T o o 0l ftB E?[ I 't C) :'l:. +. ..; ../ ,\ ..,i ORDER WP.No.42132 of 2015 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @- :Tr< wf 'lza