THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.20271 of 2023
ORDER:
The case of the petitioner is that one late Bandakunta Sajeeva Reddy was the joint owner along with others in respect of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.8.13 guntas situated at Deveryamzal Village. While so, on 25.01.1988, a judgment and decree was passed in O.S.No.57 1984 which was filed by the joint owners and late Bandakunta Sanjeeva Reddy being defendant No.5 has become the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.8.01 guntas situated at Deveryamzal Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri district. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 10.06.2004 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, issued a family member certificate declaring that Bandakunta Sanjeeva Reddy expired on 25.03.2001 leaving behind his legal heirs i.e., his first wife, her daughter, his second wife and her daughters. On 09.12.2006, the petitioner's father purchased the shares of first wife and daughter of late Bandakunta Sanjeeva Reddy, 2 to an extent of Ac.4.05 guntas each in Survey Nos.700 and 791 through an agreement of sale and thus he is in possession and enjoyment of the same.
The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.3, being the second of wife of late Sanjeeva Reddy, not only started disputing the ownership and possession of the petitioner over the land purchased from the first wife and daughter of late Sanjeev Reddy but also trespassed into his agricultural lands and started interfering with the agricultural activities, which constrained him to lodge a complaint dated 05.07.2023 on the file of the respondent No.2, and the same was not entertained as it was civil in nature, but basing on the false complaint lodged by respondent No.3, FIR.No.571 of 203 has been registered against the petitioner and issued notice under Section 91/160 Cr.P.C in C.No.571/Cr/P-1/Cyb/2023 without making any enquiry on the petitioner's complaint.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents police are interfering with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3 and are 3 frequently summoning him to police station and forcing him to enter into settlement with respondent No.3.
Learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently contended that in fact there are disputes with regard to partition of properties of late Sanjeev Reddy and pending finalisation of the same, the petitioner basing on an agreement of sale is claiming right over the property, which is actually in possession of respondent No.3.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Since it appears that there are serious civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3 with regard to the subject property, the respondents police are not having any power or authority to interfere with the same.
Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents police not to interfere with the civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3 in any manner. If the presence of the petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation in Crime No.571 of 2023, 4 the respondents police are directed to follow the due procedure as contemplated under law.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 11.10.2023 JSU