Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 718 (TS)

Sajjan K. Agrawalla v. State of Telangana

2025-05-28

T.VINOD KUMAR

body2025
ORDER : (T. VINOD KUMAR, J.) The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not providing the police protection for implementation of the injunction order dt.04.12.2019 passed in I.A.No.30 of 2019 in O.S.No.8 of 2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District, in respect of the land in Sy.No.366 admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas situated at Ayushmati Vanam (A.F.L.54) at Raikal Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and also to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in seizing the JCB bearing No.AP 21 N 8460 on 19.01.2020 used for making construction and for removal of construction and also for removal of some structures in the land of the petitioner, in Crime No.38 of 2020 on the file of P.S.Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents police officials to provide necessary protection to the petitioner. 2. Heard Sri A.Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and perused the record. 3. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage and the lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 7 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition. 4. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he is the owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.366 admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas situated at Ayushmati Vanam at Raikal Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dt.30.01.2016 bearing document No.1160/2016 from B.Bharath Reddy s/o late B.P.Reddy; that after purchasing the property, the same was mutated in the name of petitioner and revenue officials have issued a pattadar passbook and title deeds in favour of the petitioner after conducting necessary enquiry as provided under the Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 and the Rules made thereunder; and that the petitioner thereafter applied to the executing officer to grant permission for construction of compound wall which has been duly granted. 5. 5. Petitioner further contends that on the petitioner starting construction in the land, his vendor started interfering with the construction; that the petitioner filed a suit, vide O.S.No.8 of 2019 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, seeking relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants therein and also filed interlocutory application, vide I.A.No.30 of 2019 seeking grant of temporary injunction and obtained the order therein initially on 29.01.2019 which order was made absolute on 04.12.2019. 6. It is further contended by the petitioner that after the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction granting injunction, he had engaged a JCB and men for construction; that when the JCB and men engaged by the petitioner got down to work at the subject land which is subject matter of suit, vide O.S.No.8 of 2019, respondent No.3 at the behest of respondent Nos.5 to 7 have seized the JCB and other instruments on 19.01.2020; and that the respondents police officials have also warned the petitioner not to enter into the scheduled property. 7. Petitioner also contends that on obtaining injunction order initially and after the said order was made absolute, he had approached the respondents and submitted representations dt.21.08.2019, 25.08.2019 and 18.01.2020 requesting to extend police protection for implementation of the injunction order; and that the respondents police officials instead of implementing the injunction order started interfering with the petitioner’s possession and construction being made. 8. Petitioner further contends that since, the respondents-authorities did not take any action on the representations submitted by him, he had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition, vide W.P.No.4270 of 2019 questioning the action of the respondents-authorities in not taking any action on the complaint made against the unofficial respondents herein; and that this Court by order dt.08.03.2019, in the aforesaid Writ Petition directed the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner. 9. It is also contended by the petitioner that pursuant to the aforesaid direction of this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition, the respondents- authorities have registered a case, vide Crime No.140 of 2019 on 13.03.2019 against the unofficial respondents herein, but, however, did not provide police protection for implementing the order of injunction and on the other hand, were insisting the petitioner to get specific order from the Court to provide police protection for implementation of the injunction granted in his favour in I.A.No.30 of 2019 in O.S.No.8 of 2019. 10. 10. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 on instructions would submit that in the injunction order granted in I.A.No.30 of 2019 in O.S.No.8 of 2019, there is no specific direction to the respondent police to provide police aid to the petitioner for implementation of the injunction order; that on the other hand, the unofficial respondent No.7 herein had approached the respondents-authorities and lodged a complaint against the petitioner stating that he is having Acs.20.32 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.365, 366, 367 and 368 of Gram Panchayat Raikal; that he had constructed a compound wall to the aforesaid property; and that the petitioner had damaged the aforesaid compound wall constructed by him claiming that the said land belongs to the petitioner; and thus, sought for taking action against the petitioner. 11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submits that the 7 th respondent further claimed in the plaint filed in O.S.No.8 of 2019 that the petitioner and others have criminally trespassed into his land and damaged the compound wall with the help of JCB and sought for taking action thereon; and that based on the aforesaid complaint lodged by the 7 th respondent herein, the authorities have registered a case, vide Crime No.38 of 2020 under Sections 447 , 427 read with 34 IPC against the petitioner and in the course of investigation into the aforesaid crime, have seized the subject JCB on 19.01.2020 and is in the custody of the respondents-authorities. 12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 13. While the petitioner claims of he having purchased agricultural land in Sy.No.366 situated at “Ayushmati Vanam”, Raikal Village, Farooqnagar Mandal, under a registered sale deed, the unofficial respondent No.7 herein on the other hand is claiming to be the owner of land admeasuring Acs.20.32 guntas in Sy.Nos.365, 366, 367 and 368 and both the petitioner and the unofficial respondent No.7 have approached the respondents- authorities and lodging complaint against one another and the unauthorized and illegal interference by the other with their possession of the land being claimed by them respectively. 14. 14. However, it is to be noted that the petitioner herein having approached the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction had filed a suit, vide O.S.No.8 of 2019 in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas being claimed by him in Sy.No.366 situated at Raikal Village, wherein the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction had initially granted an ex parte ad interim order of injunction in his favour on 29.01.2019 and after hearing the respondents/defendants in the I.A. and the suit, had made the aforesaid order of ad interim injunction absolute by its order dt.04.12.2019. Thus, by virtue of the aforesaid order of the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction, the respondents/defendants in the suit were injuncted from interfering with the land being claimed by the petitioner. 15. Though on behalf of the respondents-authorities, it is contended by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the 7 th respondent having approached the respondents-authorities and lodging a complaint against the petitioner herein of he encroaching into his land admeasuring Acs.20.32 guntas in Sy.Nos.365, 366, 367 and 368 of Raikal Village, inasmuch as the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction had granted an injunction in favour of the petitioner, the respondents-authorities while registering a case against the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid complaint lodged by the 7 th respondent ought to have taken steps requesting the revenue authorities to localize the land being claimed by the petitioner for which he had also obtained an order of injunction from the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction as against the land being claimed by the 7 th respondent herein. 16. It appears that the respondents-authorities instead of taking the aforesaid action by themselves or directing the parties to get the land surveyed by a surveyor chose to register a case by setting in motion the criminal process, including illegal detention of the petitioner and his men in the respondent police station and also seizing the vehicle hired by the petitioner. 17. 17. The respondents-authorities while registering the case basing on the complaint made by the 7 th respondent herein of the petitioner encroaching into the land and damaging the compound wall constructed by it, did not even bother to verify as to when the 7 th respondent had made the aforesaid construction and also as to whether the said construction of compound wall has been made by obtaining any valid permission or sanction from the concerned municipal authorities for the 7 th respondent to claim of he being in possession of the subject land and the petitioner trespassing thereinto illegally. The fact of the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction having granted injunction in favour of the petitioner on the other hand would show that the petitioner to be in possession of the subject land and not the 7 th respondent. Thus, this Court is of the view that the action of the respondents-authorities in particular respondent Nos.3 and 4 is clearly overreaching their power by involving themselves in civil disputes. 18. Further, this Court by its order dt.08.03.2019, in W.P.No.4270 of 2019 having granted interim direction, whereby the respondents were directed to take appropriate action on the representations submitted by the petitioner dt.24.02.2019, 11.02.2019 and 05.02.2019 including implementation of the injunction order in I.A.No.30 of 2019 in O.S.No.8 of 2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sahdnagar, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, it was not open for the respondents-authorities to claim that there is no specific direction to the respondents-authorities for extending police aid for implementing the injunction order. 19. Further, it is also to be noted that the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of in Satyanarayana Tiwari v/s. Station House Officer, P.S. Santhoshanagar, Hyderabad , [ AIR 1982 (AP) 394 (DB)] in para 3 had held as under: “The legal position as observed by the learned single Judge does not admit of any doubt that the orders of the Civil Court prevail on the question of possession. Any anterior or subsequent enquiry and finding of the police or any other authority cannot nullify the finding of the civil Court…” 20. Any anterior or subsequent enquiry and finding of the police or any other authority cannot nullify the finding of the civil Court…” 20. Since, in the facts of the present case, the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction having granted initially ex parte ad interim injunction on 29.01.2019, which order had been made absolute on 04.12.2019, it is neither the respondents-authorities nor the 7 th respondent can claim that the petitioner not being in possession of the subject property and he having encroached into the 7 th respondent property, for him to approach the respondents-authorities and making a complaint and the respondents- authorities acting thereon by detaining the petitioner and his men and also the machinery viz., JCB on 19.01.2020. 21. Further, the action of the respondents-authorities in not considering the request made by the petitioner to extend police aid for implementation of the said order by adopting hyper-technical approach claiming that there is no direction from the Court to extend police aid, per se contempt of the order of this Court in W.P.No.4270 of 2019 dt.08.03.2019. 22. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents-authorities in particular respondent Nos.3 and 4, to investigate into the aforesaid crimes registered strictly in accordance with law, and not to interfere in the civil dispute that may exist between the petitioner and the 7 th respondent in respect of land in Sy.No.366 of Raikal Village, and to extend necessary police protection for implementation of the injunction order granted in I.A.No.30 of 2019, in terms of the interim order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in W.P.No.4270 of 2019 dt.08.03.2019, if the same is subsisting as of date. No order as to costs. 23. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.