IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 27064 of 2014 BETWEEN M/s.Priority Homes Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Chief Executive Officer.
AND ... PETITIONER Government of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition emanates from the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), Rajendranagar Divsiion in batch of appeals viz., Appeal Nos.C/2753/2014 and batch, dated 28.08.2014. The allegation of the petitioner, as stated in the complaint, dated 05.08.2014, said to have been filed before the Commissioner of Police, respondent No.2 is concerned, it is stated that the Rajendranagar Police are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner with respect to the land, in question, viz., Survey No.2 situated at Attapur Village, Rajendra Nagar Tahsildar, Ranga Reddy District.
3. Learned Government Pleader for Home, on instructions from the Inspector of Police, respondent No.3, states that no complaint or case whatsoever was received or registered against the petitioner’s company on the file of Rajendranagar Police Station, Cyberabad. Petitioner’s further allegation that respondent No.4 has asked them to stop the work is also denied. It is stated that the police never interfered with the civil disputes much less the dispute of the petitioner herein.
4. In view of the said specific instructions, it is evident that respondent Nos.2 to 4 police are not interfering with the civil disputes stated to be pending before the revenue court and also stated to be pending before the civil court in O.S.No.223 of 2011 before the District Court, Ranga Reddy District. Since the primary allegation of the petitioner against respondent Nos.2 to 4 is not established, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition.
Writ petition is accordingly, 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 7, 2014 Note: -
Furnish copy by two days.
{B/o} LMV