THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.37698 OF 2016

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 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents police seized the premises of the petitioner bearing House No. 8-2- 293/82/1111/70, Plot No.70, Road No.71, Phase Ill, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 500033 with collusion of the 5th respondent without have any valid legal order from any competent authority or court and in violation of law and procedure and without conduct any panchanama as required under the law by interfering into the civil disputes is illegal, inviolation of the law and principles of natural justice and also violation of Articles 14,21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and against the Apex court judgment reported in Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of UP and consequently direct the respondents police to handover the house to the petitioner by break open lock and to pass such other order or orders that the Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice..….”

2. Heard Mr.Bh.Rama Krishna Naik, learned counsel petitioner and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent police were attempting to take possession of the property bearing Door No. 8-2-293/82/JIII/70 in violation of the orders issued by the Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay, and therefore, the present writ petition was filed seeking necessary directions.

4. The Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that, in compliance with the directions of the Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay, the police merely provided protection while steps were being taken for possession of the property, and that no independent action was undertaken by the respondent police to take possession of the property.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that the petitioner’s son had borrowed certain amounts, and upon default, steps were initiated before the Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay. Pursuant to the Court Receiver’s orders, when the property was proposed to be taken into possession, police aid was sought. However, before the process could be completed, as the entire outstanding dues were cleared the contract was accordingly terminated. Thus, possession of the property was never actually taken, and the cause of action no longer survives.

6. I have carefully perused the material on record.

7. From the pleadings, it is evident that possession of the property was proposed to be taken under the orders of the Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay, in pursuance of the contract and the steps initiated by respondent No.5. However, as per respondent No.5, the entire dues were cleared, the contract was terminated on 23.12.2017, thereby bringing the proceedings before the Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay, to a conclusion.

8. In view of these developments, which transpired during the pendency of the present petition, and since the foundational cause itself has been resolved, the grievance raised by the petitioner does not survive for adjudication, particularly as it stands clarified that possession of the property was never taken.

9. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

__________________

N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 02.09.2025 mmr