1. D. Chandrasekhar Reddy v. The State of Telangana, Rep

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRt PALLE SRIHARINATH Rt: RESENTING FOR SRI M. PARMA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRt BHUVANAGIRT SRIDI{ 1 I ASST. GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER i.) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY W.P.No.38876 of 2O15 DATE: 05-12-2025 Between: D.Chandrasekhar Reddy and another AND ... Petitioners The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary and two others. . . Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: ". . . . issze o writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of urit of Mandamus declaing the action of Respondent no.3 in fumishing false infonnation as regards the final report aLlegedlg filed in Cime No. 5O9 of 2O1O pending before Police Station, Madhapur as arbitrary, unjust and opposed to lau.t rtith a consequentiol direction to entntst the inuestigation of Cime No. 5O9/201A b an independent Agencg ub., C.B.l., Neu,, Del'ni, anC pctss..."

2. Heard Mr. Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel representing Sri M.Parma Reddl', learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bhuvanagiri Sridhar, learned Assistaat Government Pleader lor Home appearing on behalf of respondents.

3. This petition is filed by the petitioners alleging that they are the owners and possessors of the iand admeasuring 26.00 2 Acres a:rd 10.00 Acres respectively situated ir iy.No.1007/A of Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, ?anga Reddy District, having purchased o under un-registered sale deed dated 12.O5.1)83 from the lawful or,vners of the said property i.e., Mr. Pilli Elala Mallarah ald others. The names of the petitioners were rr so rnutated in the revenue records by foilowing due process ,r. aw as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Rights n Land And Pattadar Pass Books Act, l97l

4. It is also stated that various proceedings , 'ere issued by the revenue officia,ls confirming that Sy.No.1C( 7 is a private land and that the Government has no interr r L on the said land. The survey of the said iand was () nducted and boundaries were demarcated bv the revenue cf icials and the subject land is also having an electricity corr rection which shows the name of the petitioners along witt a sign board. However, when the revemle authorities disu ontinued the narnes of the petitioners as pattadars by refer I ng them only as possessors, the petitioners hled a revision ,etition before the Joint Collector and thereafter approached t ris Court uide W.P.No.27915 of 2OO9, wherein this Court hr ci granted an interim direction to the police authorities, not tc intcrfere rvith I / ,,/ i I i 3 the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the subject property, without following due process of iaw. It is further submitted that the sard writ petition was ultimately disposed of by this Court on 22.12.2OO9.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that another writ petition was also filed by the petitioners uide W.P.No.22449 of 2010 challenging the in-action of the police 1n proceeding with the investigation pursuant to the registration of Crime No.5O9 of 2010, which was registered by the police upon the private complarnt filed by the petitioners under Section 19O and 2OO of the Cr.P.C., and the said writ petition was disposed of uide order dated 28.09.2010 by recording the submission of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on instructions issued by the police that the investigation of the said crime in connection with FIR No.509 of 2010 came to an end and that respondent No.3 ttrerein filed a charge sheet/final report, within a period of eight (O8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the police had categorically stated before this Court that the investigation had already been completed and 4 submitted a report within a period of eight ( )8) weeks, no such report was filed before the concerned CorJ -t as stated in the said writ petition. 7 . It is further submitted by the learned ir )unsel fcrr the petitioners that when the petitioners approa<:lr rd respondent No.3 to verify the status of Crime No.509 of 2( 10, they were informed that respondent No.3 had already file r a final report in the said crime concluding that the complai: . made b1, the petitioners as 'civil in nature'. Therefore, t re petitioners submitted a copy application vide C.A. No.4247 tf 20 t 5 before the learned XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukzr pally in Crime No.5O9 of 2O1O on 31.08.2O15. But, on the r ame da1' they were informed that no final report had been - ceived b,r. the Court. Thus, it is specifically contended b1. he petitioners that if any such hnal report is prepared by ttr,: police, a copy of the same ought to have been furnished to t re petitioners, so as to enable them to file a protest petil.i rn before the concerned Court and any deviation in this regard lvould establish the suspicious conduct of the ofhcers

8. Under the circumstances, the pe-,; ioners were constrained to approach this Honourable Court to declare the action of respondent No.3 in furnishing ferls: information ; L I i l i1 L I ! I : I : E I I I 5 a, regarding the alleged filing of hnal report in Crirne No.5O9 of 2OlO, pending on the file of P.S. Madhapur, with a consequential prayer to entrust the investigation of the said crime to an independent agency, preferably Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

9. However, the petitioners hled I.A.No.l of 2025 seeking amendment of the prayer, in so far as the consequential direction to entrust the investigation to a Special Investigation Team (SIT) instead of CBI. The petitioners also {iled another appiication uide I.A.No.2 of 2025, to amend the name of respondent No.3 in the cause title as Station House Officer, Allapur P.S., Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

10. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home furnished a copy of the final report dated 16.04.2016, wherein after conducting necessary investigation, the police had referred the case as 'civil in nature' ald a-lso submitted the final report before the learned XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad.

11. It is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the said final report was never served upon the petitioners and as such there was no occasion for I t i l i I l I i -11 6 them to file a fresh petition challenging the sir C final report. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Gover -rment Pleader for Home stated that the said final report was rlre ady served on the petitioners and the sarne was sent to he petitioners through a regrstered post. A copy ,) the postai acknowledgment evidencing service of final relr ,rt inciuding a copy of final report have been placed on recc -d in the writ petition, duly serving a copy of the sarne ') r the learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, it is conl t nded that this q,rit petition is liable to be dismissed as t,, ing devoid of merits.

12. At this stage, the learned counsel for he petitioners stated that the petitioners may be granted litrt: ty to file flresh a peLition, if so advised.

13. [n view of the foregoing discussion, it is cl rar that a fina-l report was submitted before the concerned I [agistrate way back in the year 2016 itself and there m 1ht be several subsequent developmenfs pursuant to th ( said report submitted by the police. Even according t I the learned counsel for the petitioners, there are severa-l ca;es pending in respect of the said Sy.No.1OO7, which is the sr-t rject matter of '1,- 7 private compiaint, forming the genesis of the present litigation. More than ten (10) years have elapsed after frling the present writ petition arrd no orders were passed by this Court in the writ petition. Further, the petitioners have not availed the remedies available to them under law. 14 . Keeping in view of the specific request made by the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners failed to make out aly grounds and thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to pursue all the remedies which are available under law to protect the subject property clalmed by

15. With the above said observations, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stald closed Sd/.A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR SISTANT REGIST //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI M. PARMA REDDY' Advocate 2. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for th 3. Two CD CoPies To, BNMPMK PU lot e retangana. [OUt] HIGH COURT DATED:0511212025 ORDER WP.No.38876 of 2015 ,J o a t.o'i 2 l Dr TC { i I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (, qX T\u