IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.27870 of 2014 BETWEEN Mrs. Basherunnisa.
AND ... PETITIONER Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Home), Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. MIR MASOOD KHAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME (TG) MR. S. MIR MASOOD ALI KHAN The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home and learned counsel for the proposed third respondent, who has filed an implead petition, being WPMP.No.37126 of 2014.
2. The subject matter of dispute, in this writ petition, appears to be a passage between premises No.16-3-839/A and premises No.16-3-839/1. While the former belongs to the petitioner, the later is claimed by the proposed party.
3. Petitioner states that the aforesaid passage is shown in the sale deed of the petitioner as Southern boundary and the said passage forms part of the property of the petitioner. Since the petitioner intended to take up demolition of the shed over the said passage, complaining interference by the police, the present writ petition is filed.
4. On 19.09.2014, this Court passed the following order:
“Notice before admission returnable in two weeks.
The petitioner shall take all necessary precautions and undertake the dismantling work of the dilapidated structure late in the night hours, after obtaining the necessary permission from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation under Section 456 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, so that it will not pose any risk or danger to the passers-by on the road. Police may not interfere in this activity.
Post after two (2) weeks.”
It appears, thereafter, that no such permission is so far granted to the petitioner, though petitioner has approached GHMC in terms of the order aforesaid.
5. Meanwhile, the Inspector of Police, submitted instructions to the learned Government Pleader, which states that they received a complaint from the proposed respondent on 14.09.2014 after which they visited the property of the petitioner and on finding that there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the said complainant, the complaint, as made by the said proposed respondent, was found to be false and since it relates to civil dispute, the complainant/proposed respondent was advised to approach the civil Court. It is also stated that the respondent police never harassed, threatened or interfered with the civil disputes between the petitioner, her family members and her relatives with regard to the above property at any time.
6. The proposed party, who seeks to come on record and opposes the present writ petition, submits that she has purchased the property bearing No.16-3-839/1 under registered sale deed 08.08.2012 from her husband and claims that the aforesaid passage is shown as her property in the sale deed. However, the sale deed of the petitioner’s vendor’s vendor or the title through which the petitioner’s vendor’s vendor acquired title is not before this Court nor it is expedient under the writ jurisdiction of this Court to go into that question.
It is apparent that there is competing title claim by the petitioner and the proposed respondent with regard to the passage in question.
7. Since the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is limited, as to the interference by respondent No.2, in view of the instructions by the learned Government Pleader from respondent No.2, which are recorded as above, no further orders are necessary to be passed, as the police have categorically stated that they not interfered and they have advised the parties to approach the civil Court as the dispute is of civil nature.
8. In the circumstances therefore, the parties are free to approach the competent Court of law to establish their right and seek necessary relief. The proposed respondent does not appear to be a necessary party for adjudication of this writ petition, hence, WPMP.No.37126 of 2014 is rejected giving livery to the proposed respondent to ventilate her grievance by approaching appropriate Court of law.
The writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 13, 2014 DSK