G. Suryanarayana Reddy, v. State Of Telangana,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.11449 OF 2015 Date:28.04.2015 Between:

G. Suryanarayana Reddy .. Petitioner And The State of Telangana, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.11449 OF 2015 ORDER:

Heard.

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the lands admeasuring Acs.8.30 guntas in Survey No.393, Acs.2.05 guntas in Survey No.399, Ac.1.22 guntas in Survey No.409, Acs.2.08 guntas in Survey No.410, Acs.3.07 guntas in Survey No.411/1, Ac.0.09 guntas in Survey No.411/2, Acs.15.30 guntas in Survey No.470 and Ac.1.17 guntas in Survey No.579, totally admeasuring Acs.35.08 guntas at Malkajgiri Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner applied for Occupancy Rights Certificate (ORC), which is the subject matter of the Writ Petition. The said application is stated to have been rejected on the ground that Wakf Board notified the aforesaid lands as Wakf lands in its Gazettee. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8010 of 2007, which is stated to be pending.

The petitioner also states that against the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and its officials, he filed W.P.No.18706 of 2010 alleging unlawful interference, wherein this Court, by order dated 09.08.2010, directed status quo to be maintained by the parties. The present grievance of the petitioner is that though there is no complaint or crime registered against him, the respondent Police are continuously calling him to Police Station and pressuring him to dispossess from the land. The instructions of learned Government Pleader for Home, however, show that respondent No.4 has neither received any complaint nor registered any crime against the petitioner and that his presence is not at all required for any case registered in his Police Station. It is also stated that respondent No.

4 neither summoned the petitioner nor interfered with the lands in question. The specific allegations of the petitioner that respondent No.4 never pressurised him or asked him to hand over the said lands to respondent No.3 are also denied. In view of the specific instructions that no case is pending against the petitioner and his presence is not required, the same is recorded and no further orders are required to be passed in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 28.04.2015 KH