High Court slams Telangana cop for meddling in civil land dispute

According to the petitioners, SI Ramamurthy has been summoning caretakers and others to the police station repeatedly, making them wait for hours, and conducting illegal surveys in violation of court orders.

By Legal Correspondent

Hyderabad: Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court on Monday came down heavily on Chintapalli Sub-Inspector Ramamurthy of Nalgonda district for allegedly interfering in a civil land dispute involving 32 acres in Kurmed village.

---

The Court questioned the legal basis of police involvement in conducting land surveys and facilitating settlements in civil matters.

The matter came to light following a petition filed by TV anchor Shilpa Chakravarthy and Jada Kalyan, who alleged that the SI along with one Mohammed Abdul Aziz, from whom they had purchased the land in 2017 was harassing them.

Despite the existence of a permanent injunction and police protection orders issued by the civil court, the petitioners alleged that local police continued to interfere and were pressurising them to settle the dispute at the police station.

“It is not the job of the police to conduct land surveys or hold civil negotiations,” the High Court remarked sternly.

Justice T. Vinod Kumar, who heard the matter, issued notices to the Principal Secretary, Home Department; Director General of Police; Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Devarakonda; and SI Ramamurthy, calling for their responses.

According to the petitioners, SI Ramamurthy has been summoning caretakers and others to the police station repeatedly, making them wait for hours, and conducting illegal surveys in violation of court orders.

They alleged that despite multiple FIRs registered against certain private individuals, no action has been taken so far, and that the police are misusing their authority to assist in unlawful settlements.

Taking a serious view of the matter, the High Court sought explanations from all the concerned officials and allowed the petitioners’ counsel to serve the remaining notices.

The matter has been posted for further hearing after four weeks.