PVP misquotes Telangana HC order to justify fight for property
Deccan Chronicle.| N. Vamsi Srinivas
Police pressed charges of trespassing into neighbours' property and intimidation against PVP
Potluri Vara Prasad. (DC file photo)
HYDERABAD: Controversial businessman Potluri Vara Prasad, popular as PVP, has allegedly been misreading a High Court order to justify his actions on Tuesday that led to the Banjara Hills police booking a case against him and his employees.
Based on a complaint by D. K. Shruti Reddy, daughter of BJP leader D. K. Aruna, the police pressed charges of trespassing into neighbours’ property and intimidation against PVP. Giving a twist to the case, Vara Prasad, who earlier faced allegations of chasing away police, unleashing dogs when they went to his house in connection with a case, served this time a contempt of court notice against Banjara Hills station house officer P. Shiva Chandra and assistant commissioner of police M. Sudarshan.
Following the exposure, Vara Prasad released a video on Wednesday in which he categorically claimed that he was only implementing a High Court order based on which he said he had been carrying out all the activities (of erecting iron sheets on a compound wall that separates his property and a gated community in which Shruti Reddy lives in).
When this newspaper asked Vara Prasad to elaborate on the court order, he referred to a December 22, 2021, order of the Telangana High Court in writ petition no 33174 of 2021. He claimed that he sought a direction from the court to police not to interfere with erection of fence on the compound wall and that the government pleader (home) informed the court that there was no interference from the police. "We even informed the police about the HC order and commenced the civil works on Tuesday," he pointed out.
But the order issued by the High Court reads, "In view of the submissions made by the AGP for home, no orders were required to be passed in this writ petition. However, it is open to the official respondents (police) to follow the rule of law in the event of commission of any offence by any party to the writ petition."
Inquiries revealed that Vara Prasad’s company which developed the neighbouring gated community showed the compound wall as boundary for it while obtaining the permissions from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The Banjara Hills police who earlier investigated into a complaint filed by Vara Prasad himself against the neighbours for obstructing him from erecting a fence, closed it since the dispute was civil in nature.
"It is a gross lie to claim that the High Court allowed him to erect fence on someone else’s wall. No court will allow him to enter into other’s property, intimidate them and build something that belonged to the community," said Shruti Reddy, the complainant. "We have not received any such court orders," she said.
A senior police official on condition of anonymity, referring to the same order quoted by PVP, said the court left it open to police to follow the rule of law in the event of commission of any offence by any party to the case. "The dispute is clearly civil in nature as both parties claim ownership of the compound wall. It is for the civil courts to decide. Meanwhile, the police will act if they receive any complaint relating to trespassing and criminal intimidation," he pointed out.