The High Court · 2025

'1 . The State of Andhra fr.r9".l, Rep. by its principal Secretary, Home ^ Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. The Director General of poiice, HvteraOaa. 3. The Superintendentof eolice,.XaiimnJgainurat, Karimnagar.. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of potic;,-(;rim;;;ar Rurat, Karimnaoar. 5. The Circte I nspector police_(nura r ) kirimnas;;:ru;;ild;;'Diri;Xt: 6. The Sub lnspector police, Rural, (arimnaorT. ' /. Elaqandula Asho( 9{g Rangaiah, " Aged about 47 years, Occ. ^ Govt.Emproyee, puthur Virrage of tri,nir,bnoL''. rrrranJai-tiarimna,ir"iol"uJ' 8. smt. E Sunanda, w/o. E.A"shok, As;d-;*ri' ?rt;;;;, o;:"iril"Jliilro, Puthur Viilage of [Vlanakondur lva;dai Grirn;igar District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 or the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to lssue a writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of mandamus decraring the action of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 in interfering with the civil dispute which is subjudice in o.s.No.86 of 2014 on the file of Hon,bte Junior civir Judge, Karimnagar, by forcing the petitioner to vacate from the subject rand by threating to impricate the petitioner in sc, ST case as ilegar, arbitrary and improper and consequentry direct the officiar respondent Nos.4 to 6 not to interfere in civir dispute case and not to force the petitioners to vacate the suit land l l l I I i I : I I l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 15868 0F 2014) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour: direct the respondents not to interfere in the civil dispute of p Sq. yards bearing Nos. 13 and 14 in Sy.No.67 vide documer 19- 5-2012 situated in Rekurthi Village, Karimnagar Mandal to pressurise the petitioner to vacate the suit land, pending (i rmstances stated in may be pleased to )t admeasuring 200 No 522112012, dt. (arimnagar and not ;posal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. ARAVIND Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1to6: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7&8: - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE VAKITI RAMAI(RISHNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.l 2658 of 2Ol4 ORDER: The writ petition is rrled by the petirioner under Articre 226 of the constitution of India seeking direction to the respondent police authorities, particularly respondent Nos.4 to 6 not to interfere in civil disputes in respect of the subject property which is subjudice in O.S.No.86 of 2014 on the fite of Hon,ble Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, and to res[rain them from forcing the petitioner to vacate the subject land by threatening her with false criminal implication under the provisions of Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19g9 (for short "SC & ST Atrocities Act.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of plot bearing Nos.13 and 14 in Sy.No.67 of Rekurthi Village, Karimnagar Mandal and District, having purchased the same through a registered sale deed No.S22l /2012, dated t9.o5.2012.

3. It is further stated by the petitioner that on 1O.03.2014, the respondent No.7, who is a police constable and stralger to the subject plots, attempted to interfere wifh her possession and 2 enJoyment over the said plots. Consequently, tl.r petitioner was constrained to file a suit for injunction in O.S.No.[ ( of 2O14 on the hle of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar ir rd also obtained an order of interim injunction vidc I.A.No.29g rf 2014, dated 19.o3 20t4.

4. It is alleged by the petitioner that in spite of <:c r rmunicating the said interim order, the respondent No.7 again attet pted to illegally occupy the subject plots by dumping crusher matr r ial and cement. Therefore, the conduct of the respondent No.7 wa; brought to the notice of the higher authorities by submitting a repl.( sentation dated 29.O3.2014 including the respondent Nos.4 to 6 retlt,sting to initiate appropriate action against the respondent No.7 an( to restrarn him from indulging in such unlawful activities.

5. It is furthcr stated by the petitioner that subs€c said suit in O.S,No.86 of 2014, the respondent Nos.7 ulterior motive, Iodged a false criminal compla r petitioner which resulted in registration of F.I_R.No., SC/ST (POA) Act, on the file of police Starion, Karinr uent to filing of and 8 with an t against the tri/2Ol4 under ragar Rural on

30.03.2014. Although, the pe [itioner was not shou r therein, the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 allegedly summc police station at the behest of respondent Nos.7 e subjecting her to harassment. Under such cirt;rr as an accused red her to the nd 8, thereby n sternces, the 3 petitioner having left with no other option was constrained to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under ArLicle 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the said impugned action of the respondent Nos.4 to 6.

6. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home has placed on record the written instructions issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karimnagar Rural Police Station, Karimnagar District, dated

19.05.2014. The respondent No.6 has categorically stated that upon receipt of a complaint from respondent No'8, the said Cr.No. 196/2O14 was registered on 30.03-2014 against one Sri Srinivas Reddy and 1O others. During the investigation as many as six witnesses were examined by recording their detailed statements. Now, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home that after conducting necessary investigation in the said crime, a charge sheet was hled before the Special Court for SC/ ST (POA) cases, Karimnagar in S.C.No. 101/2017. Subsequently, the said case itself was concluded in acquittal. 7 . The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would further submit basing on the instructions received from respondent Nos.4 to 6 that, the police never interfered in the civil disputes or in possession of the petitioner over the subject land in Sy No'67 of _/ Rekurthi v rage, Karimnagar Mandal and District. . ,irus, the officiar respondents have emphatically denied the allege I harassment or coerclon.

8. At this juncture, it is brought to the notice ( I 1.his Court that the very suit in O.S.No.g6/2014 on the file of letrrr ed Junior Civil .Judge, Karimnagar was dismissed for default vi, [e ordcr dated

10.05.20 i9.

9. In view of the categorical statements of police ruthorities that they have never interfered in the civil disputes rr rr harassed or threatened the petitioner, and that in the light of the , [ismissar of [he said suit in O.S.No.g6 of 2014, which is the basis for t re present Writ petition, this Court linds that the cause in the Writ p: ition no longer survives for adjudication 10 Accordingly, the Writ petition is dismissed. .I.tL, re shall be no order as to costs As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applicatiorL, , if any, shail stand closed //TRUE COPYil I D/- M. NAGAMANI ASSIIJ TANT REGISTRAR / €)- t---./ S ECTION OFFICER To, I 9lg !Q to s!! r\4 ARAV|ND, Advocate ropucl ' 3. Two CD Copies ' 'i}o'".Crto'rl" \\X BM HoME 'Hish rsfifro* PVL -c;ui iii ti""'strtu or'- ,langana at HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 ORDER WP.No.12658 of 2014 THE 14 RL\ ( (J * 2 B li:\ 2l?E 7- I * Fa r: DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITH()UT COSTS C'?,9 6 wI ,i'h