SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 36327

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
Mr.Abdul Waheed – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 35972/2018



THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.35972 OF 2018

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the Official Respondents Nos.1 to 6 more particularly the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 as arbitrary, ex-facie illegal, highhanded, dereliction of duties in interfering into civil disputes in respect of Petitioners Property covered under Sy.No.7, admeasuring 312 Sq. Yards, covered in Plot No.1, C-Block, situated at Qutubshahi Enclave, Alijapur Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal (Now Gandipet Mandal), Ranga Reddy District under Huda Layout No.15226/MP11/Huda/9 and consequently may direct the Official Respondents more particularly the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 including their subordinates not to interfere in respect of Petitioner’s said Property by meddling themselves into the civil disputes, in the interest of justice and may pass…”

2. None appears for the petitioner. Heard Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have not interfered in the civil disputes pertaining to the petitioner’s property situated in Survey No. 7, admeasuring 312 square yards. It is further submitted that the petitioner, apart from making vague and general allegations of interference, has failed to furnish any specific particulars or tangible material to substantiate such claims. In the absence of any prima facie evidence indicating unlawful interference by the respondent police, the allegations remain unsubstantiated and devoid of supporting material. Hence, it is contended that the writ petition is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

4. I have perused the material available on record.

5. The specific grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos. 5 and 6, who are police officials, have allegedly interfered in his civil disputes relating to possession of the property referred to above.

6. It is a well-settled legal principle that the police authorities have no role to play in purely civil disputes involving property rights, possession, or ownership unless there is an element of criminality, breach of peace, or threat to public order. Accordingly, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are directed to refrain from interfering in the petitioner’s civil disputes concerning the property in question.

7. However, it is clarified that this order shall not preclude the respondent police authorities from taking appropriate action, if warranted, strictly in accordance with law and by following due process of law in the event of any complaint involving cognizable offences or disturbance to public peace.

8. With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 26-11-2025

VJB

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top