Telangana High Court
Gattukishanrao vs Dr. Pingle Prabha Dr Prabha ... on 27 January, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL Nos.36 and 39 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeals are arising out of a common order
dated 10.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.Nos.17129 and 8173 of 2021.
The facts of the case reveal that W.P.No.17129 of 2021 was
preferred by one Dr. Pingle Prabha stating that the Police
authorities have locked the house bearing plot No.60 situated at
Park View Evenue, Hasmathpet, Secunderabad, and to declare the
action of the Police authorities in not delivering the vacant
possession of the house as illegal and arbitrary with a direction to
the Police authorities to deliver vacant possession of the said house
to her. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the State
Government (Police) and it was categorically stated that they have
not placed any lock over the property in question. Another
important aspect of the case is that another writ petition i.e.,
W.P.No.8173 of 2021 was filed by Sri Gattu Kishan Rao, who is the
appellant in the present writ appeals, stating that his son - Sri
Gattu Vaman Rao, who was an Advocate, and his dauther-in-law -
Smt. P.V.Nagamani, who was also an Advocate, were residing in
house bearing plot Nos.59-A and 60 at Park View Evenue,
Manovikas Nagar, Hasmathpet Road, Hyderabad (old Bowenpally),
there are various articles therein and the Station House Officer has
locked the house and therefore, possession of the house and the
articles be handed over to him.
2
As already stated earlier, the State Government took a
categorical stand that they have not locked the house, nor have
they taken possession of the house. The facts of the case further
reveal that an application for impleadment was also preferred
before the learned Single Judge by the parents of late Smt.
P.V.Nagamani and they also started claiming possession of the
house in question.
The unfortunate aspect of the case is that the learned
Advocates Sri Gattu Vaman Rao and Smt. P.V.Nagamani were
murdered by some people on 17.02.2021 and since then the house
is under lock.
The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, has
directed delivery of possession to Dr. Pingle Prabha, who was
claiming herself to be the landlady of plot No.60 only. In respect of
the items which are lying in the house, the learned Single Judge
has appointed an Advocate Commissioner - Ms. M.Rajeswari, to
make out an inventory of all the articles and to keep the articles in
a safe place under lock and key to be arranged by the petitioner in
W.P.No.17129 of 2021. Today, while the matters are taken up,
learned counsel for the appellant has argued before this Court that
late Advocates, Sri Gattu Vaman Rao and Smt. P.V.Nagamani,
were in fact title holders of the property. Meaning thereby, the title
of Dr. Pingle Prabha was in dispute before the learned Single Judge
as well as before this Court.
In the considered opinion of this Court, whether Dr. Pingle
Prabha is the landlady or not, whether the subject house was
leased out or not and who is the titleholder, cannot be decided by
this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
3
Constitution of India. The petitioner in W.P.No.17129 of 2021,
Dr. Pingle Prabha, came up before this Court stating that the
subject house has been locked by the Police and there was a
categorical stand by the State Government (Police) that they have
not locked the house. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this
Court, no such order could have been passed for delivery of
possession and handing over of the articles, as has been done by
the learned Single Judge, as there were disputed questions of fact
involved in both the writ petitions.
This Court does not find any reason to allow the reliefs
claimed by the writ petitioners in the writ petitions. Resultantly,
the impugned common order passed by the learned Single Judge is
set aside. The parties shall be at liberty to take recourse to the
civil proceedings for redressal of their grievance.
The writ appeals are accordingly allowed. The miscellaneous
applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
______________________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
______________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
27.01.2022
vs
