Telangana High Court
Dalapathi Venkata Krishna Nagender Rao … vs State Of Telangana And Another on 19 August, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6316 OF 2022
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused
Nos.1 to 7, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.452
of 2022 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Sangareddy, for the offences punishable under sections 447, 427, 341 and
295 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC‘).
2. Heard Mr.P.S.S.Kailashnath, learned counsel for the petitioners and
Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for
respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners
have not committed the alleged offences and they were falsely implicated
in the present crime. He further submitted that the land admeasuring
Ac.7.14 gts, situated in Sy.No.166 of Ameenpur Village and Gram
Panchayat, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District (presently Sanga Reddy
District), originally belongs to one K.Pandu Ranga Reddy (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘original land owner’). M/s. Empire Meadows Private
Limited (hereinafter called the ‘Company’) entered into a Development
Agreement with the original land owner and subsequently registered the
2
Development Agreement-cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney on
27.08.2009 through registered document No. 7563/2009. Pursuant to the
said agreement, the original land owner delivered physical possession of
the property in favour of the Company.
3.1. Thereafter, the Company obtained permission from the competent
authority, namely HMDA, Secunderabad, vide LR No.12279/P4/plg/
HMDA/2009, dated 27.08.2010. The said permission was also submitted
to the respective Gram Panchayat, namely Ameenpur Gram Panchayat.
The said Gram Panchayat also issued permission vide proceedings
No.GPA/211/2009-10, dated 21.09.2010. However, one Girdavar of
Ameenpur lodged a complaint on 14.04.2022 alleging that the petitioners
were attempting to dispose of the land covered by Sy.No.166 and were
trying to remove the sheds of the Shivalayam Temple. Based on this
complaint, Crime No.150 of 2022 was registered at the Ameenpur Police
Station. The investigating officer, without properly conducting the
investigation, filed a final report on 14.04.2022 before the learned
Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sanga Reddy, and the said
Court has taken cognizance and numbered the case as C.C. No.452 of
2022.
3
3.2. He further submitted that the said property does not belong to the
Gram Panchayat or the Revenue Department and it belongs to the original
land owner who along with the Company had entered into the
Development Agreement-cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney
dated 27.08.2009. According to permissions granted by the competent
authority, i.e., HMDA, the property has been divided into plots as per the
approved layout. Petitioner No.1 is the Director of the Company, and
petitioners Nos.2 to 7 are employees of the Company. Hence, the
ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against the petitioners.
3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the
original land owner as well as the Company had approached this Court
and filed two Writ Petitions, namely W.P.Nos.6520 of 2018 and 11925 of
2019, questioning the action of the respondents in encroaching the
property belonging to the original land owner and also the resolution
passed by respondent No.2, the Gram Panchayat, Ameenpur. The said writ
petitions were allowed by this Court on 28.03.2022, holding that neither
the Gram Panchayat nor the HMWSSB could have any right, claim, title,
or interest over the subject property in Sy.No.166 merely on the basis of
the resolution dated 05.07.2017 passed by the Gram Panchayat,
Ameenpur. The Court further held that the respondent authorities cannot
4
convey a better title to respondent No.3 therein, i.e., the HMWSSB.
Consequently, the resolution passed by respondent No.2, Gram Panchayat,
dated 05.02.2017, was set aside. However, the Court left it open for the
Gram Panchayat, Ameenpur, or the HMWSSB to to seek proper relief
before the appropriate authority if they have any right, title, claim, or
interest over the subject property.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the order
passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.6520 of 2018 and 11925 of 2019, dated
28.03.2022 has become final. Although the said order and other relevant
documents were placed before the investigating officer, the investigating
officer, without conducting proper investigation, filed the final report on
14.04.2022. The plot occupiers have collectively constructed a
Shivalayam temple roofed with ten sheds, and as on today, the temple is in
existence. Neither the original land owner nor the Company has taken any
steps to claim the said property or to seek removal of the particular
structure. In view of the above, the initiation of criminal proceedings
against the petitioners is a clear abuse of the process of law.
5. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the
investigating officer has specifically mentioned the role of each petitioner
in the final report. The grounds raised by the petitioners involve disputed
5
questions of fact which are required to be adjudicated during the course of
trial. He further submitted that there are no grounds to entertain the
petition seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.452 of 2022. Hence,
the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective
parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that
petitioner No.1 is the Director and petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 are employees of
the Company. The record further discloses that the Company claims rights
over the property admeasuring Ac.7.14 gts, pursuant to the registered
Development Agreement-cum-Irrevocable General Power of Attorney
executed by the original land owner on 27.08.2009. The record also
discloses that the Company obtained building permission from the
competent authority, namely HMDA, Secunderabad, vide LR
No.12279/P4/plg/ HMDA/2009, dated 27.08.2010. Further, the Gram
Panchayat, Ameenpur, issued proceedings dated 21.09.2010. The record
reveals that the Gram Panchayat, Ameenpur, represented by its Executive
Authority, along with Hyderabad Metro Water Supply and Sewerage
Board (HMWSSB), are attempting to encroach upon the subject property.
In this regard, the original land owner, approached this Court and filed
W.P.No.6520 of 2018, challenging the highhanded actions of the
6
respondents in illegally encroaching the property. While the said writ
petition was pending, the original land owner along with the Company
filed another writ petition vide W.P.No. 11925 of 2019, challenging the
resolution dated 05.07.2017 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Ameenpur,
allotting land to an extent of Ac.200 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.166 for the
construction of an overhead water tank, as well as the consequent
allotment letters dated 05.07.2017 and 10.11.2017 in favor of
HMWSSB/respondent No.3 therein. This Court allowed the said two writ
petitions by way of a common order dated 28.03.2022, wherein the
operative portion of the order reads as follows:
“In the case on hand, the only claim to the property by
respondent Nos.3 and 4 is the layout for Sy.No.165 and 166/P where
the subject property along with adjacent area is shown to be earmarked
as ‘Lord Shiva Temple’, but there is no proof or document filed by the
contesting respondents to show that the petitioner No.2 had applied for
the said layout and therefore the said layout is binding on him.
For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the above of proposition
of law laid down in Pt. Chet Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corporation of
Delhi 1, this Court is of the opinion that either the Gram Panchayat or
through them HMWSBB cannot have any claim, right, title over the
subject property in Sy.No.166 merely on the basis of the resolution
passed by the Gram Panchayat and the consequential allotment, unless
the Gram Panchayat has any title to the property, they cannot convey
better title to the respondent No.3-HMWSSB. Therefore, the Resolution
dated 05.02.2017 as well as the consequential orders dated 05.10.2017
and 10.11.2017 are set aside. However, leaving it open to the Gram
Panchayat/HMWSSB to seek appropriate relief before appropriate1
(1995) 1 SCC 47
7authority if they have any right, title or interest over the subject
property.”
7. Even according to the parties, the order passed by this Court has
become final. Thereafter, neither the Gram Panchayat nor HMWSSB
initiated any proceedings against the original owner, or the Company
claiming rights over the property.
8. The record further discloses that the plot owners, who have
purchased the plots from the Company have occupied a portion of the land
in Sy.No.166 and constructed a Shivalayam Temple roofed with ten sheds.
Even according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, as of today, the
temple is in existence, and neither the original land owner nor the
Company has taken any steps to claim rights over the said temple.
9. Taking into consideration the orders passed by this Court in
W.P.Nos.6520 of 2018 and 11925 of 2019, this Court is of the considered
view that the Company is not claiming rights over the property pursuant to
the registered Development Agreement-cum-Irrevocable General Power
of Attorney. Petitioner No.1 is the Director, and the other petitioners are
employees of the Company. Hence, the ingredients of the alleged offences
are not attracted against the petitioners.
8
10. Hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in
C.C.No.452 of 2022 are clear abuse of the process of law and the same is
liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioners
in C.C.No.452 of 2022 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Sangareddy, are hereby quashed.
11. Accordinlgy, the criminal petition is allowed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 19.08.2025
Note: Issue CC in ten days
b/o
vsl