1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION No. 3873 OF 2021
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction of 2nd respondent in registering FIR pursuant to written complaint dated 04.01.2021 lodged by petitioner. Petitioner states that he owns agricultural land in an extent of Ac.1-00 in Survey No. 217/1 of Yedapally Village, Nizamabad District. Originally, the said land was owned by Mr. Subbarao and the same was allotted to him by Nizam Sugar Factory. The matter was settled between Mr. Subba Rao and Mr. Battu Mallia and they requested Sugar Factory to get the land registered, but the same was not entertained. Hence, they filed Writ Petition No. 12522 of 2020 which is pending before this Court. It is stated that board was erected in the said land, but some local leaders have removed the sign-boards and are cultivating agricultural lands of petitioner without his permission. Hence, complaint was lodged with Police Station on 04.01.2021, but action was not taken.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader placed on record written instructions received by him, wherein it is stated that Writ Petition No. 12522 of 2020 in connection with same land is pending before this High Court. On complaint lodged by petitioner, GD entry was made, enquiry was conducted and in view of pendency of Writ Petition No. 12522 of 2020, he was informed through notice dated 10.01.2021 that further action would be taken pursuant to orders passed in the said Writ Petition.
This Court is of the view that mere pendency of Writ Petition cannot be a ground for Respondent No.2 to keep 2 investigation / preliminary enquiry pending. In view of the fact, as stated by learned counsel for petitioner, that said Writ Petition is filed in connection with revenue / property dispute and there is no order restraining police not to take any action, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing Respondent No. 2 to conduct preliminary enquiry in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari v. State of U.P.1 and if enquiry reveals commission of cognizable offence, FIR should be registered and further investigation should be done. In case enquiry reveals that it is not a cognizable offence, then, the result shall be intimated to petitioner. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
_________________________ B.VIJAYSEN REDDY,J 05th November 2021 ksld 1 (2014) 2 SCC 1 3 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients instructed him not to press the contempt case. 5
Recording the above submission, the contempt case is closed as not pressed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand closed.