Syed Mohammed Ali v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * WRIT PETITION No. 4402 of 2012 BETWEEN Syed Mohammed Ali ... PETITIONERS AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary and others ...RESPONDENTS Date of Order pronounced: 22.07.2015 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

3. Whether their Lordship wish to see the Yes/No fair copy of the Judgment?

ORDER:-

The grievance of the petitioner in this case was that the Station House Officer, Bowenpally Police Station, Secunderabad, failed to comply with the order dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Special Court under the A.P.Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.1058 of 2009 in I.A.No.338 of 2009 in L.G.C.No.18 of 2009. By the said order, the Land Grabbing Court directed the Station House Officer, Bowenpally Police Station, to give police protection to the petitioner for stopping further construction activity.

2. Relying on the written instructions dated 08.07.2015 received from the Station House Officer, Bowenpally Police Station, Hyderabad, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home informed this court that upon the complaint made by the petitioner that in spite of the order granted by the Land Grabbing Court, one K.Yadi Reddy along with his henchmen erected huts in the subject land, crime No.57 of 2010 was registered under Sections 109, 188 and 447 IPC on the file of Bowenpally Police Station. Upon investigation, the police authorities laid a charge sheet in the case before the competent criminal court against the accused, K.Yadi Reddy. However the case ended in acquittal on 12.05.2014.

3. In the light of the aforestated developments, it is clear that the allegation of the petitioner that the police authorities did not take requisite action upon the order passed by the Land Grabbing Court is without basis. It appears that action was initiated but ultimately, the accused in the case was acquitted by the competent criminal court.

4. This court therefore sees no reason to interfere in the matter at this stage.

Writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall also stand dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ SANJAY KUMAR, J July 22, 2015 Lmv