9V_"_A 4f v. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the 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 A/andamus, to Declare the illegal action of the Respondents more particularly the Respondents No.3 and 4, interfering with the civrl matters of the petitioner's property bearing Premises No.13-6-432/42 and No.13-6-432142tA, admeasuring 982 Sq. yards or 822.88 Sq. Meters (both part of premises No..13_6_ 432), in Sy.No.22214, situated at Netaji Nagar, Gudimalkapur Village, Asif Nagar lrlandal, Hyderabad District-, with boundaries- North - Land of Vendor Nos. I to 7 in Sy.No.22214 South - Land of Vendor Nos.l to 7 in Sy.No.222t4, EasI - 150 Wide Road (lvlain Road), West - Land of Vendor Nos I to 7 in Sy No 222t4 and.222t3, and not to threaten the petitioner- to settle the civil disputes, as illegal, arbitrary a and unjust its nothing but abuse of their official power, and r iolation of Articles.l9 and 21 of the onstitution of lndia, and consequently direr; the 4th respondent herein, to registeri ' the compliant made up on the petitionet, on 23.02.2017 . l.A.NO:1 OF 2017 (WPMP.NO:11284 oF 20171 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue the drrections to the respondents 3rd & 4th, not to intl fere the civil cases, and not threaten, the petitioner by way of registering of fals ) cases, against the petrtioner property bearing Premises No 13-6-432142 ,i No.13-6 -4321421A, admeasuring 982 Sq. yards or 822.88 Sq. Meters (both part c f premises No.13-6- 432), in Sy .No.22214, situated at Netaji Nagar, Gudimalkaprr Village, Asif Nagar lVlandal, Hyderabad District , pending disposal of the main wri petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR VEERJA .A Counsel for the Respondents : SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDD)'. AGp FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER I' 1i + .tHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.9l07 OF 2017 ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking for the lollowing relief-: "to issue an appropriate llril Order or Direction ntore particularl.y one in the nature of Wril of Mandamus to Declare lhe illegal ac'tion of tlrc Respondents more particularly the Respondents No 3 and 4 inter/bring v'ith the civil natters of the petitioners property bearing Prcmises No 136432/42 and No 136432/42/A adnrcanring 982 Sq yards or 822 88 Sq lllcters both parl of premises No 136432 in S.v No 222/4 situatcd at Netaji Nagdr Gudinrulkopw' Village Asif Nagar Mandal I lydcrabatl Distt ict tt ith boundaries Norrh Land of Vendor Nos I to 7 in Sy No 22)/1 Sourh Land of Vendor Nos I to 7 in Sy No 222/1 East 150 ltidc Road Main Road lVest l.and qf Vcndor Nos I to 7 in S1t No 222/4 and 222/3 and nol to thrcat(n th( pelilioners to scltle the civil dispules as illegal arbitrary and unjust its nothi g but abuse o[their official power and violation of Arlicle 19 antl 21 of rhc constitutiorl of India and consequcnlly direct the 4th rcspondcnt hcrcin to rcgistcrcd thc complianl ntade up on lhe petitioner on 2 3 02 )0 I 7' .

2. I have heard Mr.Praveen Kumar Veerjarla, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner lodged a police report dated 23.02.2017. However, instead of taking appropriate action on the said report, the police authorities :-- 2 insisted on the petitioner's presence at the pcl ce station and allegedly tirlcatcncd him to settle certain civil disprr es'

4. On thc othcr hand, learned Assistant Covemr rent Pleader for Home contends that the allegations made by tlLr petitioner are unfounded. He submits that at no point did the p I ice interfere in any civil clisputcs or colrpel thc petitioner 1( enter into a settlement. Whilc it is true that the pctitioner lodgc< a police report on 23.02.201 7, a preliminary inquiry was condu: ed, and it was Ibund that the conrplaint was purely civil in nature Thereforc, no Iurther action was warranted. [n view of the same, r lthing survives in this writ pctition. and it is Iiable to be dismissccl, 5 I have penrsed the mate rials available on rec I cl.

6. The petitioner-'s prayer is twofbld: first, that the respondent police arc allegedly threatcning him to settlc a crr il dispute; and second, that the policc be directed to register a casr on the basis o[ his complaint dated 2i.02.2017. 3

1. With respect to the first contention, the petitioner asserts that his neighbors, who admittedly have neither right nor title over the disputed property, have been attempting to interfere with his developmental activities thereon. It is further alleged that respondent Nos. 3 and 4, misusing their official position, have been coercing the petitioner to reach a settlement with those neighbors. The petitioner specifically avers that respondent Nos. J and 4 visited the subject property on 22.02.2017 and again on 0l .03.20 t7, during which visits they threatened and warned him. In these circumstances, and having regard to the pleadings on record, this Courl deems it appropriate to direct respondent Nos. 3 and 4 not to interfere in the petitioner's civil disputes relating to his propefty, except strictly in accordance with law

8. As regards the second relief sought, it is by now well settled that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot ordinarily be invoked where an effective altemative remedy is available. Entertaining a writ petition in such circumstances runs contrary to the settled legal position as laid down by the Hon'bte Supreme Cou: in a catena of judgments, including the decision in Sakiri Vasu Vs State of Uttar - Prodesht and the three Judge Bench ofthe Hon'ble I upreme Court in the case of M.Subramanium and Ors. Vs. S. Jat aki and Ors2, fortilred the dictum laid down in the case of Saki;, Vasu (supra) and hetd that the writ of mandamus cannot be issu,: . directing the respondent authorities to register FIR / Crime er,, n though the complaint indicates the commission of an olfence Ihus, leaving open to the petitioner to avail appropriate jurisdictic r in regard to the conrplaint dated 23.02.2017, this prayer to he extent of dirccting the respondent No.4 lor considering the rr1 resentation is disrnissed.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allow,: [. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if a r ,, shall stand closed. T2oo8l2l scc 4og 2 (2020l. 16 scc 728 //TRUE COPY// IiD/-8. REKHA RANI SI iTANT REGISTRAR A\ \ becrroru oFFrcER \\I

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secreta\At, I ,late of Telangana at Hyderabad. T.S.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City, Hyderaba: 3. The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Asif Nagar, Hyderabzrr . 4. The Station House Officer, Lunger House P.S., Lunger ll ,use, Hyderabad. - 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HOtVE, High Court for the State of 6 One CC to SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR VEERJALA, Advocah [OPUC] 7. Two CD Coptes Hyderabad. [OUT] elangana at To <: +fl SA -l HIGH COURT DATED:13108t2025 ORDER WP.No.9107 of 2017 PARTLY ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. q: I ':,, \i,.1 1 r .:i, ru5 ' \' :l ,,'),