High Court for State of TelanganaWP/2044/2015disposed of no costs

Md. Azeezoddin, S/O. Late Abdul Khader v. The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Its Principal

2015-02-11Vilas V.Afzulpurkar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.2044 of 2015 BETWEEN Md.Azeezuddin ... PETITIONER AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others. ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Heard.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of his complaint, dated 23.01.2015 alleging interference with his possession and enjoyment of survey Nos.315, 381, 382 and 383 of Chintapalli Vilage, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda district, no action is taken by the police on the said complaint.

3. Instructions of the learned government pleader received from the Station House Officer, Rural Police Station, Miryalaguda, show that petitioner has filed O.S.No.42 of 2014 before the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District and obtained interim injunction on

22.08.2014, which was in force upto 20.01.2014 and the persons named in the complaint of the petitioners are the defendants in the said suit. Whereas the said defendants also filed O.S.No.3 of 2014 on the file of VIII Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda and they also obtained interim injunction on 06.02.2015 against the petitioner and others. Thus, in view of the two cross civil suits and the orders of injunction in favour of the respective parties, the Station House Officer, expresses his inability to take action on the petitioner's complaint as it would amount to interference with the civil disputes.

4. In view of the above, therefore, the respondent-police, particularly respondent No.3, obviously cannot take cognizance on the petitioner's complaint as civil suits filed by both the parties are pending and the orders of injunction in the respective suits are stated to be in operation. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to move the civil court for appropriate direction. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 11, 2015 LMV