1 . Smt. Devisingh Sunitha Singh v. Deoartment. Secretariat Buildings' Hyderabad

Smt. T. Savithrr, W/o. T. Ramesh Kumar,. Aged.5-5 yt z iii", n""iJ"nt oi g. t'to. 9-2-4201421 , Rezimental BazzLr ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT Nc'' 's, Occupation House Secunderabad. /RESPONDENT No.4 AND 'l . Smt. Devisingh Sunitha Singh, W/o.. Sri Devisingh v vears. occuoition House wife, Resident of l-lat -No ' fu1,".t'i e#rt.ent, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad 2. K 'Parshrjram, S/o Sri K. Krishna, Aged about ' - iirtin"i., R/o H. No. 42-783, Moula Ali, Secund^erab' ( 3. A Srrnivasa Rao, S/o. Sri Apparao, Aged 48.yeiLt - Setri"e, R/o H No. 12-13-444, Tarnaka, Secundera I i"ooi"Lt",t bv their GPA holder Sri Ageer-Venkat I Aoeer lndrasen, Aqed 39 years, Occupation tsuslness , t t"-qbsl r t o, SBI C6lonv. Moosarambagh, Hyderabad Department. Secretan-at Buildings, Hyderabad' ...RESPONDENTS/PETIT II 4. The Slate of Telangana. Represenled by. its Prir t 5. Th6 Commisstoner of Police, Hyderabad- 6. Tne St"tion House Officer, Tukaramgate PS, Secundct . . ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1to3/RE i :rcrai Singh, Aged 58 08,'6-1-9/10, Sterling 0 years, Occupation ;, Occupation Private rd. The petitioners are amana, S/o. Late Sri lesident of H. No. 16- INERS/PETITIONERS pal Secretary, Home rbad. 'ONDNETS Nos. 1to3 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in th 3 in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cr vacate the inteflm orders granted in W.P.M.P. No.1' I circumstances stated rrt may be pleased to 16 of 2016 in W P No.'16440 of 2016 dated 19{5-2016 by this Honble Court in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. BASAM SHIVATEJA REP SRI. CH SIDDHARTHA SARMA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1to3: SRI R' LAXMIKANTH REDDY' AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Proposed Respondent: SRI P' V' SANJEEVA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER i i I I I I I |a: I l L i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUru ] LAMJI WRJT PETITION No.16440 OF 2016 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking for the follow r g, relief: "to issue u Writ, Order or direclion more particuht 1.' one in the nature of ltrrit o.f Mandamus declaring the oction of the 3rd re4 '';ndent herein .in htghhandedly interlering and dispossessing the petitioners a' he irctance of the 4th respondent in respccl ol the propcrty of the petitione'. admeasuring 100 Sq. Yards. 66 Sq. Yards and 88 Yords bearing Plot Nos. 2't. 242 and 245 respectively sittmte in Sv. No. 74/lt. East Marredpally, Sct mderabad as being illegal, arbitrary, violarive of Articles l4 and 300-A of I t Constitution of India by selting aside the said ottion and consequet'l v, direct the respondents not to interfere and di-sltosses.s lhe petitioners itt \2spect of the said land and pass such olhcr order ttr orders as this Honble t)' urt may deem fit and proper in the ciratmstances of the cuse".

2. I have heard Ms.Basam Shivateja, learn ld cbunsel representing the learncd counscl for the peli loners and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, leamed Assistant Governn ent Pleader for Home appearing fbr respondent Nos.l to 3.

3. Learned counsel lbr the petitioners subfiis that, on

13.05.2016, of fjcials ol the police department unlav'.,rlly entered upon the petitioners' property and threatened thsrn lrth forcible dispossession unless they vacated the premises. It is cc rtended that such unwarranted interf-erence, in what is essentially r private civil 2 dispute between the petitioners and third parties, c6nstitutes an abuse of police authority and is violative of the rule of law Reliance is placed on the well-settled principle that the police have no role to play in matters of purely civil character, sat'e where specific dir-ections are issued by a competent court of law

4. [n response, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Horne submits that the respondents have, at no point of time, interfered cither with the petitioners' possession over the subject propefly or with the civil proceedings pending between the petitioners and private parties. It is argued that the allegations contained in the writ petition are vague, unsubstantiated, and unsupporled by any credible documentary material. On that basis, a prayer is made fbr dismissai of the petition as being devoid of

5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced and pe rusec tlte tnate riais available on record.

6. lr is tritc iaw, as held by the Supreme Courl. in Lallu Yesltu:ant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singlz (AIR 1968 SC 620) and I I \ \ 3 reiterated in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu ((',\ 04) 1 SCC 769), that possession, even if disputed, is protected in lw, and no person can be dispossessed otherwise than in due prc r ,:ss of law. This Court has consistently emphasized that policr: authorities cannot, under the guise of maintaining law and order., i rtervene in private civil disputes relating to possession or titk,, unless so directed by a court of competent jurisdiction. Simila - t, in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India ((2009) 6 SCC 142), rhe I pex Court underscored that executive authorities must act strict[./ within the confines oflaw and not usurpjudicial functions.

7. In light of the above legal position, and in order r( safeguard the lawful interests asserted by the petitioners, it is hen:l y directed that the respondents shall relrain from inrerlering in le dispute, which is manifestly civil in nature, between the petit rners and private parties. The respondents arc lurthcr restri.i .red from disfurbing the petitioners' possession over the propert./ save and except in strict accordance with law and pursuant to I clers of a competent court. 4

8. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To, SD/- Smt. p.C. SULEKHA D ASSISTANT RE R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER T.S.,Hyderabad 1 . The princi pal Secretary, Home Department, 2 The Commissioner of Police Hyderabad 3. The Station Hou se Officer 4. One CC to SRt CH SIDD HARTHA PS, Secunderabad. 5. One CC to SRt P. V. SANJEEVA RAO, Advo SARMA Ad vocate {oPUC 6. Two CCs to Gp FOR HO ME ,Hig h Cou rt for cate IO the Sia 7. Two CD Coptes Hvderabad tourl PUC1 te of ukaram ,T at Buildings, Telangana at BM a4 I i I I i I I I I I I I I i t I j I i i I t I .. I I i i { I l e E I I $I I f I I i ! I I I j t r I i \ \ I \ HIGH COURT DATED:0810912025 ?_ ( ,-) 17 :fi 21126 16 1,/ * e 't I 1 r'r-'t ,i) 'J/' ,q .a- ORDER WP.No.I6440 of 2016 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 'N,K