Writ appeal challenging a single judge's direction to provide police protection/bandobast to survey officials conducting demarcation of land in Nirmal. The appellants were not parties to the writ petition; the survey had already been conducted. The division bench found no ground to interfere and dismissed the appeal without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[34el ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEENKUMAR
WRIT APPEAL NO: 1492 OF 2025
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters PatentWrit Appeal preferred against the order dated 28t102O25 in W P No 32533 of 2025and passon the file of the High Court.
Between:
AND
... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying thatin the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of thepetitron, the High Court may be pleasedto grant leave to the Petitioners herein to file the above WritAppealagainstthe order of the ld Single Judge dt. 28.10.2025in WP. No. 32533 of 2025
t
lA NO: 4 OF 2025
Petition under Section151 CPC praying thatin the c t )umstances statedin the affidavit filed insupport of the petition,the High CoLt may bepleasedto suspend the operationof the order daled 28 '10 '2O25 mad= in W.P No. 32533of 2025 thereby directingthe respondent No-9 to providep ' tection/bandobastto the respondent Nos.3 toB for conductingthe surveyin he subject Property, pending the disposal of the aboveWrit Appeal
Counsel for the Appellant:SRl. NARESH REDDY CHINNOt LA Counsel forthe RespondentNos- 1&2: SRI N. KRISHNASl MANTH Counsel for the RespondentNos.3toS:SRI MURALIDHAFREDDY, AGP FOR RE<sup>ENUE Counsel for the RespondentNo.9: SRI M. SRINIVAS'AGP FOR HOME The Court made thefollowing:JUDGMENT
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
WRIT APPEAL No. 1492 of 2o25
DATE:24.L2.2O25
Between:
Dyaga Sudharshan,
S/o.Dyaga Bhumanna,
R/o.Nirmal District & another
. .. Appellants
And
M.A.Haleem, S/o.M.A. Raheem,
R/o.Nirmal District & 8 others.
...Respondents
Sri C.Naresh Reddy, Iearned counsel appearing lor the appellants
Sri N.IGishna Sumanth, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Sri Muralidhar Reddy Katram, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue representing respondent Nos.3 to 8.
Sri M.Srinivas, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home representing respondent No-9
JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhatracharya)
aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28. lO.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge in V/.P.No.32533 of 2025 fiied by the respondent Nos. l&2 herein.
-/
2
in the WritPetition was for t Witof 2. The PraYer the actionof the StationHrlr-t 'c Off-rcer' Mandamusagainst Nirmal, innot providing assistance/ protectionto thc :sponderlt Nos.2 to 6for conducting survey and demarcat rn of ttre petitioners'landin Sy'Nos'657/4'657 ll'657 l2'ituated in Nirmal RevenueVillage, NirmalDistrict'
rts subrnits 5. [rarned counselappearing for the appell: that theappellantsright to the subjectland is prt:s't ntly pen<ling before the AssistantDirector of Survey andIz rd Records, Nirmal. Counselfurther states that seekingpoli e protec[ion was unwarrantedin the factsand circumstances('l the casc.
lltEE!----?iil :. r'a1*-: .
3
g. W.A.No.1492 of 2025 isaccordinglydismissed'All connected applicationsshall stand closed-Thereshall be no order as to costs.
SD'-MOHD.ISMAIL ,/ DEPUTYREGISTRAR/ --/1/ ,<<-l
//TRUECOPY/'
SECTIONOFFICER
To,
BM BS ,r--
HIGH COURT
DATED:2 411212025
JUDGMENT
'llE
tt1
ioi
iJT I
1)
a utt z
F] C
WA.No.1492 of 2025
DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITI-I)UT COSTS
*
A
-b
\j
,Y
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal was maintainable against an order directing police bandobast for a survey when the appellants were not parties to the writ petition and the survey had already been completed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dyaga Sudharshan
Dyaga Anand
M.A. Haleem
Vuppala Digambar Rao
State of Telangana
The Station House Officer, Nirmal Town
Moushumi Bhattacharya
Gadi Praveen Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
