Telangana HC Refuses Interim Relief to Former MLA Jeevan Reddy

The Telangana High Court was not inclined give interim relief to BRS former MLA Ashannagari Jeevan Reddy and his family in relation to the two FIRs, one over land encroachment and criminal trespass under the Mokila police limits and the other in Chevella police limits. Jeevan Reddy and his family members and business partners approached the court stating that the charges were false and requested the court to quash the FIRs or stay the further proceedings including arrest.

In the first case, businessman Sama Damodhar Reddy complained to the Mokila police that Jeevan Reddy had threatened them and tried to grab the land in the name of a memorandum of understanding. The Mokila police who booked a case of criminal trespass, wrongful restraint, extortion after subjecting to fear of threat, cheating and criminal intimidation. This referred to a dispute over the land of Chaitanya Resorts located in bearing Sy. No. 349, 351, 358 to 360, 362, 367 to 375, 377, 386 to 388, 390, 391 to 395, 397 to 400, 425, 435, 439, 441, 439 and 444 at



Tungatoor.

The Chevalla police registered a complaint of Damodhar Reddy against Jeevan Reddy and his associates on charges of coercion over the land of about 20 acres in Sy. No. 32, 35, 36 and 38, at Erlapally, Chevella mandal. The complainant claimed that there was a function hall on the land in the name of his father Parma Reddy. Jeevan Reddy, his wife Rajitha, his mother Rajubai claimed that they owned half the land, demolished the building and made new construction.

K. Venumadhav, counsel appearing for Jeevan Reddy and his associates, said these were civil disputes and cases were pending before the Rangareddy district court and others over the title declaration. The complaints had been filed due to malice and the police had booked false cases, he said. Justice Laxminarayana Alishetty was not inclined to issue immediate relief orders and the court made it clear that it wanted to look at the contentions of the other side. The court ordered notices to the police and the complainant to file their responses.