Battu Mallaya vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3244 Tel

                                  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

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

(2014) 2 SCC 1

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients

instructed him not to press the contempt case.

Recording the above submission, the contempt case is closed

as not pressed.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand

closed.