Dismissed

G. Krishna Reddy and 6 Others v. The State of T.S. and 14 Others

Telangana HC15 Dec 2020WP/12953/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners sought police protection against unofficial respondents in a land dispute pending before the Supreme Court. The single-judge High Court bench dismissed the petition, holding that without a court or quasi-judicial declaration of possession, police cannot be directed to intervene in inter se civil disputes or identify possession.

What did the court decide?

direction to unfifie respondents 2 and 3 to provide police protection

G. Krishna Reddy and 6 Others Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 12953 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

G. Krishna Reddy, S/o. Late. Bal Reddy, R/o. Veltoor village of Peddamandadi Itrlandal, Wanaparthy district.

¶9

G. Damoder Reddy, S/o. Late. G. Gopal Reddy, R/o. Veltoor village of Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy district.

¶10

G. Bhasker Reddy, S/o. Late. G. Copal Reddy, F/o. Veltoor village of Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy district.

¶11

G. Raghuvardhan Reddy, S/o. Late. G. Gopal Reddy, Rl/o. Veltoor village of Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy district.

¶12

G. Rangamma, W/o. Late. G. Venkat Reddy, R/o. Veltoor village of Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy district.

¶13

G. Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Late. G. Venkat Reddy, PJo. Veltoor village of Peddamandadi IVlandal, Wanaparthy district.

¶14

G. Goverdhan Reddy, S/o late Venkat Reddy. Occ. agriculture, All are majors, and R/o. Veltoor villale of Peddamandadi N,,4andal, Wanaparthy District.

¶15

...PETITIONERS

¶16

AND

¶17

1 The State of T.S., Rep. its Prl. Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶18

2 The Superintendent of Police, Wanaparthy District, T.S.

¶19

3 The SHO, Peddamandadi Police Station, Wanaparthy District.

¶20

G. Chinna Buchi Reddy, S/o. Chinna Narsappa, major, and R/o. Veltoor Village of Peddamandadi lr/andal, Wanaparthy District.

¶21

G. Sathya Reddy, Sio. Penta Reddy, major, and R/o. Veltoor Village of Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy district.

¶22

G. Sreenivasa Reddy, S/o. Penta Reddy, major, and Fyo. Veltoor Village of Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy district.

¶23

G. Konda Reddy, S/o. Chinna Kistappa, major, and Fl/o. Veltoor Village of Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy district.

¶24

G. Sangeeva Reddy, S/o. Pedda Ramanna, major, and F/o. Veltoor Village of Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy district.

¶25

G. Pulla Reedy, S/o. Chinna Ramanna, major, and Fl/o. Veltoor Village of Peddamandadi [t/andal, Wanaparthy District.

¶26

G. Prameelamma, W/o. Late. G. Venkat Reddy, major, and Ryo. VeltoorVillage of Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy district.

¶27

1 1. G. Prabhaker Reddy, S/o. Late. G. Venkat Reddy, major, and R/o. Veltoor Village of Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy district.

¶28

12 G. tr/alla Reddy, S/o. Late. G. Venkat Reddy, major, and Fl/o. Veltoor Village of Peddamandadi l,4andal, Wanaparthy d istrict.

¶29

G. Siva Reddy, S/o. Late. G. Venkat Reddy, major, and Fl/o. Veltoor Village of Peddamandadi IVlandal, Wanaparthy District.

¶30

14.G. Sai Reddy, S/o. Late. G. Venkat Reddy, major, and R/o. VeltoorVillage of Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

¶31

Contd.....

¶32

¶33

15.G. Vishnu Verdhan Reddy, S/o. Late. G. Venkat Reddy, major, and^R/o.Veltoor Village of Peddamandadi lvlandal, Wanaparthy district.

¶34

...RESPONDENTS

¶35

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue a suitable writ order or direction more Particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, directing the Respondents No. 2 and 3 herein, to^{providepolice} aid/protection and not providing,^{protection/actio} n basing on the complaint and request made by^petitioner on 3010712020 before the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14,21 and 300A of Constitution lndia, and Further, un-official respondents be directed to not to disturb^{petitioner'spossession} till the disposal of SLP No. 768312016^pending before the Supreme Court.

¶36

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶37

Petition under Section^'1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent to^{provide police protection} basing on the complaint and request made by the Petitioner on 3010712020 to give assistance in implementing the Status Quo order^passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 7683/2016 dated 0110412016, till disposal this writ^petition.

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI Y. LAKNA REDDY

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: AGP FOR HOME

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 15: SRI J. SURESH BABU

¶41

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶42

-2-

¶43

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶44

WRIT PETITION NO.12953 of 2O2O

¶45

ORDER:

¶46

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri J.Suresh Babu learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 15.

¶47

This writ petition is filed praying to direct.the respondents 2 and 3 to provide police aid/protection basing on the complaint lodged by the petitioners on 3O.07.2O2O and not providing police aid is illegal and arbitrary. Further relief is sought against the unofficial respondents to direct them not to disturb the peti.tioners possession till disposal of S.L.P.No.7683 ol 20 16.

¶48

Shorn of details, sulfice to note that person by name Sri G.Bal Reddy claimed to be the protected tenant ol land to an extent of Ac.8.63 guntas in Sy.Nos.176ll,176/2, 1057 ll and 1057 l2 of Veltoor Village of Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

¶49

According to the unofficial respondents, though all the family members, including Sri Bal Reddy, u,ere tenants as Sri Bal Reddy was treated as Kartha of the^joint family on the entire land only Bal Reddy name is reflected. In the said manner the unofficial respondents claim their share in the above mentioned 1and. Thus, there are inter se civil disputes between petitioners and unofficial respondents on the above extent of land as successors of Bal Reddy and his family.

¶50

-3

¶51

Several rounds of contest u'as made before the revenue authorities. The Sub-Collector, Gadwal vide his order, dated 22.O2.1996 granted partial relief to the unofficial respondents holding that they are entitled to 1/3Id share on land to an extent of Ac.O.26 guntas but declined share in the remaining extent of land. This decision of Sub-Collector ^'as affirmed by the Joint Collector vide his proceedings dated 10.06.2011. Aggrieved thereby the unofficial respondents preferred C.R.P.No.4197 of 2011. This Court on elaborate consideration of respective claims, by order dated 23.09 .2015 allowed the revision declaring the petitioners therein i.e., unofficial respondents herein also entitled to \ l4th share in the land to an extent of Ac.6.35 guntas in Sy.Nos.176 ll, 17612. Aggrieved thereby, petitioners herein preferred Special Leave Petition No.7683 of 2016 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said SLP is pending consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. By order, dated 01.04.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed maintenance of status quo obtaining as on that date.

¶52

Having regard to these facts, the Court sought for clarification from learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether any Court of law or quasi-judicial authority has declared the petitioners as in possession of the said land, for them to seek police protection.

¶53

Learned counsel for the petitioners, fairly submits that no such order is passed by the Court of law or a quasi-judicial authority.

¶54

Further, having regard to the background litigation briefly noted above and having regard to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing maintenance of status-quo, unless

¶55

¶56

petitioners show that they are in possession supported by a declaration by the Court of larv or a quasi-judicial authority, directing the police to grant protection would be resulting in police involving in inter se civil disputcs and resorting to identifying thc possession aspect. Unless the possession aspect is asserted and established, poiice can not provide aid/grant police protection from alleged interference by" third parties including the unoflicial respondents. As the issue of protection is not very clear, directing the police to grant police aid u,ould lead to more complications. Therefore, the Court is not inclined to give such direction.

¶57

Having regard to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to work out their remedies as available in law to assert the issue of possession of subject land and seek consequential direction to ensure possessionary claim of petitioners. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶58

//TRUE COPY//

¶59

SD/-B.SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR .

¶60

SECTION OFFICER

¶61

To,

¶62

One CC to Sri. Y. Lakna^{Reddy,AdvocateIOPUC]} 2. One C.C. to^{Sri. J. Suresh Babu, AdvocateIOPUC]} 3. Two CCs to GP^{for Home, High Courtfor the State of Telangana[OUT]}

¶63

Two C.D. CoPles

PrkN--

HIGH COURT

DATED:1511212020

ORDER

1 llE srA 14:
o;
c
o 2 2 DEC 2U0 oz
*
t1
;rr!.-i

¶69

WP.No.12953 ol 2020

¶70

Dismissing the WP.

¶71

tBi,-1 ** )1-^,-,-\t

G. Krishna Reddy and 6 Others v. The State of T.S. and 14 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Krishna Reddy and 6 Others v. The State of T.S. and 14 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.A.S. Padma Latha Vs The State of Telangana and 4 others

Banala Sanjeeva Reddy and another Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

P. Usha Goud and 5 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 7 Others

Kudmeta Shankar Vs The State of Telangana

Narreddy Madhukar Reddy Vs the Commissioner of Police

M/s. Krishan Sai Wines, Vs the State of Telangana