Disposed¶18

Ambotu Shankar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC7 Apr 2025WP/10307/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection writ Article 226 Telangana HC 07.04.2025 T. Vinod Kumar J.; pendente lite / bona fide purchaser; doctrine of lis pendens S.52 Transfer of Property Act 1882; final decree 09.09.2024 O.S.No.361 of 1984 partition suit 1 Addl. Senior Civil Judge L.B. Nagar; relegation to civil remedies; indemnity clause sale deed; Shivaji Nagar Kammaguda Turkayamjal Abdullapurmet Ranga Reddy; Rachakonda Commissionerate Vanasthalipuram Police Station; W.P.Nos.10243, 10268, 10307 & 10318 of 2025; disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Notice to unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 15 was not necessary for adjudication, the Writ Petitions being heard and disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. ¶3

Ambotu Shankar Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent Nos.5 and 6 (police authorities) could decline to provide protection to the petitioners' life, liberty and house/plot properties against the alleged illegal activities and threatened dispossession by respondent Nos.7 to 15, and whether a writ of mandamus lies to compel such protection. +1 more

¶¶27

Court's answer

Petitioners who claim to be bona fide purchasers of the subject plots/land are required to assail the final decree dated 09.09.2024 if they are aggrieved by the decree passed against their vendor's vendor.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

¶3

Key takeaways

Where the original owner of the suit schedule property was a party to O.S.No.361 of 1984 and sold the subject property during the pendency of the suit, the purchasers' acquisition is covered by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.ratio¶13
Since no steps were shown to have been taken to assail the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2024 in O.S.No.361 of 1984, the petitioners cannot approach the respondents-authorities seeking police protection to themselves or their property so as to frustrate the decree obtained by the successful party to the civil suit.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (T. Vinod Kumar, J.), common order dated 07.04.2025 in W.P.Nos.10243, 10268, 10307 & 10318 of 2025: Purchasers of plots at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village (Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District) sought police protection under Article 226 against respondent Nos.7 to 15, who claimed under a final decree dated 09.09.2024 in O.S.No.361 of 1984 (partition suit, 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, L.B. Nagar). HELD: (i) the original owner was a party to the suit and sales effected during its pendency attract the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882; (ii) purchasers aggrieved by the final decree must assail it, and absent steps to do so they cannot seek police protection that would frustrate the decree of the successful civil-side litigant; (iii) a claim of ignorance of the suit is a matter for action against the vendor/vendor's vendor under the indemnity clauses in the sale deeds. Petitioners relegated to civil remedies; writ petitions disposed of at the admission stage without notice to the unofficial respondents; no order as to costs.

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ J

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdictiiin)

¶3

MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOs: '10243 10268 10307 & 10318 0F 2025

¶7

W.P.No.10243 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ramavath Kavitha, W/o Jarupula Devula, aged about 32 years, Occ. Housewife, Ri./o Plot No.34, Sivaji Nagar, Kammaguda, Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Director General of Police, Telagnana State, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Deputy .Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, L.B. Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram Circle, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate.

¶18

Gundla Rajamma, Wo Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 62^years, Occ. Household, R/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District.

¶19

Gundla Yadamma, D/o Gundla Jangaiah, Aged, about 34^years, Occ. Household, R/o Uppal Village, hayathnagarTaluk, Ranga Reddy District.

¶20

Smt. Balamani, W/o Rangaiah, Aged about 41^years, Occ. Household,^Ri.io Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District.

¶21

1O.Baby Anusha, D/o Late G. Padma, aged about 9^years, Occ. Minor, Rep. by her next friend^grand mother Petitioner No.1

¶22

11.Soma Shivashanker, S/o Mallaiah,^{Aged about22 yearc, Occ. Household,Rl/o} Uppal Village, Ha1'athnagar^{Taluk, Ranga Reddy District.} i 12.Soma Sabitha, D/o G. Yadamma,^{Aged about25 years, H.[rlo.4-245' No} Hanmapur Village Bhongiri Mandal,^{Yadadri-Bhongiri District.'}

¶23

13.Alla Rama Kirshrra, S/o Late Alla Sambaiah,^{Agedabout64 years, Occ.} Retired Employee , Rl/o Villa NO.42, Cyber^{Meadows, Masjid Banda,Near} Vijetha Super Market, Kondapur, Serilingampally, !.anga^{Reddy)istrict.}

¶24

Mr. Syed Mohamrned Aslam, S/o^{Late Syed Mohammed Ali, A(ted 58 years,} Occ. Business, Rl/: H.No.10-3-296, Humayun^{Nagar, Hyderabad}

¶25

15.Mr. Razwan Shzrik, S/o Shaik^{Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years, Occ.} Business, Flto flat No.204, R/o H.No.10-2-37,^{Nest Dolphin Apa'tment, Bazar} Ghat, Hyderabad.

¶26

...RE$PONDENTS

¶27

' Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia prayinr; that in the circumstances stated irr the affidavit filed^therewith, the^{High Qourtmay be} pleased to issue an ordr:r or direction more^particularly one in the nature of Writ^of Mandamus declaring tho action of the respondent^{Nos.sand 6 in no r-ihitiatingto} provide protection to ther petitioner life and liberty as well as^prot':lction to the petitioner's house propr:r1y to an extent of 122.22 S,9.^yards in F'lot No.34ⁱⁿ Sy.No.240, 241 and 2411 respectively^{which is situatedat Shivaji Na1lar (Nareddy} Hari Kishan Reddy^/enture), Kammaguda Village, under^{Ttrrkayarnlalzal} Municipality, Abdulalpurnret Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,^{and no'r-initiatingto} protect the petitioner frotn the illegal activities of the respondent N,>s.7 to 15^is highly illegal, arbitrary irrtd violation of Principles of^{Natural Justiceand alsoin} violation of Articles,^',1, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution oI India^and consequently direct the respondent Nos.S and 6 to^{provideprok;'ction} to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's hous3 property to an extent of 122.22 [;,q.^yards in Plot No.34 in Sy.No.240,^{2,11 and 242} respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar^(Nareddy Hari^KishanReddy Venture), Kammaguda^\i llage, under Turkayamjalzal Municipality, Alldulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Etistrict, to^protect the^petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to^15.

¶28

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶29

Petition under Se,;tion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstan,:es stated in the affidavit filed in suppcrt of the petition, the High Court may be plee sed to direct

¶30

the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to control the illegal activities of the respondent^Nos.7 to 15, who are creating the^panic situation in respect of^{ventureof Nareddy Hari} Kishan Reddy Venture admeasuring to an extent of^{122.22 Sq. yards in PIot No.34} in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is^{situated at Shivaji Nagar'} Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjalzal^{Municipality, AbdulalpurmetMandal,} Ranga Reddy District; and to^{provide protection} to^{the-petitioner life and libertyas} well as. protection to the^petitione/s house^{property to an extentof 122.22Sq.} yards pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶31

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶32

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the^{circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High courtmaybe pleased to direct} the respondent Nos.S and 6 to^{provide protectionto the petitionerlife andliberty} as well as^protection to the^{petitioner's house propertyto an extent of 122.22 Sq.} yards in Plot No.34 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively^{which is situated at} Shivaji Nagar (Nareddy Hari Kishan^{ReddyVenture), KammagudaVillage,under} Turkayamjalzal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet^{Mandal, RangaReddy District,to} protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent^{Nos.7 to 15} pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI^{RAPOLU BHASKAR}

¶34

Counsel forthe Respondents^{No.1to6:GP FOR HOME}

¶35

Counsel for the Respondents^No.7to15:

¶36

W.P.No.10268 OF 2025

¶37

Between:

¶38

Smt. Likki Geethavani,^{WoL. Venkat Reddy,aged aboul 42 years,Oc-q-Housewife,} nio^ptot No.20, Sivaji^{Nagar, Kammaguda, -TurkayamjalVillage,Abdullapurmet} Mandal, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶39

...PETITIONER

¶40

AND

¶41

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.^{by its Principal Secretary, HomeDepartment,} Secretariat Building, Secretariat,^Hyderabad

¶42

2 The Director General of Police, Telagnana^{State, Hyderabad.}

¶43

3 The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda^{Commissionerate, Hyderabad'}

¶44

The Deputy Conrmissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commiss onerate, L.B. Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District

¶45

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram Circle Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District.

¶46

The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station,^Rachakonda Commissionerate.

¶47

Gundla Rajammil, Wo Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 62^years, OccHousehold,'Rl/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Talfk, Ranga Reddy District.

¶48

B, Gundla Yadamna, D/o Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 34^years,Occ- Household, Rl/o Uppal Village, hayathnagarTaluk, Ranga Reddy District.

¶49

Smt. Balamani, V//o Rangaiah, Aged about 41^years, Occ- Hrtusehold,^Rl/o Uppal Village, hal,athnagarTaluk, Ranga Reddy District.

¶50

l0.BabyAnusha, D/o Late G. Padma, aged about I^years, Occ- ['linor, Rep. by her next friend grand mother Petitioner No.1

¶51

11.Soma Shivashan<er, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 22^years, Oc<, Household, R/o Uppal Village Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District.

¶52

12.Soma Sabitha, E/o G. Yadamma, Aged about 25^years, H.l,lo.4-245, No Hanmapur Village, Bhongiri Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District.

¶53

Alla Rama Kirshrra, S/o Late Alla Sambaiah, Aged about 62^years, OccRetired Employee, Rl/o Villa NO.42, Cyber Meadows, Masjid Banda, Near Vijetha Super Mark.et, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy )istrict.

¶54

14.Mr. Syed Mohamrned Aslam, S/o Late Syed Mohammed Ali, At,ed 58^years, Occ- Business, Rro H.No.10-3-296, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabac.

¶55

Mr. Razwan Shzrik, S/o Shaik Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years, OccBusiness, R/o flat No.204, R/o H.No.10-2-37, Nest Dolphin Apartment, Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad.

¶56

...RESPONDENTS

¶57

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Crurt may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the r ature of Writ of Mandamus dFclaring the action of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in non-initiating to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as^prolection to the petitioners plot property 1:o an extent of 225 Sq. yards in PIot No.20 n Sy.No.240 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Srisailam anct Pochaiah), Kammaguda Village, u nder Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpur net Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, :rnd non-initiating to protect the petitioner frcm the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15, who are engaged the unsor:ial elements and creating panic situ:rtions, by having the deadly weapons and tl reatening to dispossess the petitiorrer from his house property during the pendency of

¶58

partitio n suit and^{trying to vacatethe petitionerfrom his houseis highlyillegal} arbitrary^{and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also inviolation o} f Articles,^{14,21 and 300-Aof the Constitutionof India andconsequentlydirect} the respondent^{Nos 5 and 6 to provide protection to the petitiondr life and libertY-:-} as well^{as protection to the petitioners plot property toan extent of 225 Sq' Yards} in Plot^{No.20 in Sy'No 240 respectivelywhich!s'situated at Shivaji Nagar} (Srisailam and^{Pochaiah)' Kammaguda Village, under TurkayamjalMunicipality'} AbdulalPurmet^{Mandal,RangaReddY District, to protect the petitioner fromthe} illegal^{activities of the respondent Nos T to 15}

¶59

IA NO: 20^{F 202s}

¶60

petition under section 151 cpc^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition'the High Court may be pleased to} direct^{the respondent Nos'S and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner life and} liberty as^{well as protectionto the petitioner,s plot property to an extentof 225} Sq.^{yards in Plot No'20in Sy'No'240respectivelywhich is situated at Shivaji} Nagar^{(Srisailam &Pochaiah)'Kammaguda Village' under Turkayamjal} Municipality,^{AbdulalpurmetMandal' Ranga Reddy District' to protect the} petitioner from^{the illegalactivitiesof the respondentNos'7 to 15 pending} disposal^{of the writPetition'}

¶61

IANO:1^{oF 2025}

¶62

petition under Section 151^{cpc praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition'the High Courtmaybe pleasedto} direct the^{respondentNos'5 and 6 to control the illegalactivities of the} respondent^{Nos.7 to 15, who are creatingthe panic situationin respect of} venture^{of "srisailam & Pochaiah" admeasuringto an extent of 225 Sq yardsin} Plot No.20^{in Sy No'240respectivelywhich is situatedat Shivaji} ]"la0ar' Kammaguda^{Village, under Turkayamj al Municipality' Abdulalpurmet Mandal'} Ranga^{Reddy District; and to provide protectionto the petitionerlife and liberty} as well^{as protection to the petitionersplot property to an extent of 225 Sq' yards} pending disposal^{of the writ petition'}

¶63

Counsel^{for the Petitioner : SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR}

¶64

Counsel^{for the Respondents No.1to6: GP FOR HOME}

¶65

Counsel forthe Respondents No.7to15: -

¶66

W.P.No.l0307 OF 2025

¶67

Between:

¶68

Ambotu Shankar, S/o Branu Naik aged^{about 33 yea6,Occ-Private[':mplo1ee,Rl/o} House / Plot No.83, Sivaji Nagar, Kammaguda,^{TurkayamjalVillage, '\bdullapurmet} Mandal; Ranga Reddy []istrict.

¶69

...PETITIONER

¶70

AND

¶71

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal^{Secretary, Home[ )epartment,} Secretariat Buildi rg, Secretariat,^Hyderabad.

¶72

2 The Director General of Police, Telagnana^{State, Hyderabad.}

¶73

3 The Commissionr:' of Police, Rachakonda^{Commissionerate,Ht,'derabad.}

¶74

The Deputy Com rissioner of Police,^{Rachakonda Commissione'rate,L.B.} Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District.

¶75

The Assistant Commissioner of Police,^{Vanasthalipuram Circle,Rachakonda} Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District.

¶76

The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram^{PoliceStation, Racrakonda} Commissionerate.

¶77

Gundla Rajamma, Wio Gundla Jangaiah, Agjd^{abo_ut62 years,3_cc.} , Household, Rr/o Llppal Village, hayathnagar^{Taluk, RangaRedd'.'District..}

¶78

B. Gundla Yadammil D/o Gundla Jangaiah,^{Aged about34 years,Occ.} Household,^p7e ltppal Village, hayathnagar^{Taluk, RangaReddt,' District.}

¶79

Smt. Balamani, V1/r'o Rangaiah, Aged^{about4'l yearc, Occ. Household,Rl/o} Uppal Village, ha:lathnagar Taluk, Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶80

10.Baby Anusha; Dio Late G. Padma, aged about 9^{years,Occ. Mirror,Rep. by} her next friend gr;rnd mother Petitioner No.1

¶81

11.Soma Shivashanl<er, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 22^years, Occ.^{Hcusehold,Rl/o} Uppal Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga^{Reddy District.}

¶82

12.Soma Sabitha, t)/o G. Yadamma, Aged about^{25 years, l{.[r,le.zt-245,Rl/o} Hanmapur Villager, Bhongiri Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri^District.

¶83

13.Alla Rama Kirshna, S/o Late Alla Sambaiah, Aged about 64^yea"s, Occ. Retired Employeer, Rl/o Villa NO.42, Cyber Meadows, Masjid^{Bartda, Near} Vijetha Super Ma'ket, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.

¶84

14.Mr. Syed Mohamrned Aslam, S/o Late Syed Mohammed Ali, Aged 58 years, Occ. Business, R'o H.No.10-3-296, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabat:.

¶85

Mr. Razwan Shail<. S/o Shaik Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years, 3cc. Business, Rl/o flat No.204, R/o H.No.10-2-37, Nest Dolphin Apailment, Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad

¶86

...RESPONDENTS

¶87

Petition^{underArticle226 oI the Constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavitfiled therewith'the High Court may be} pleasedtoissueanorderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinth.enatureofWritof Mandamus^{declaringthe actionof the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in non-initiating} to^{provide protection to the petitionerlife and libe4yaswell as protection to the} petitioner^{s plot property to an extentof 204 Sq' yards in House / Plot No'83 in} Sy.No.240,^{241 and242respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar} Reddy^{and RameshReddy'Venture)'KammagudaVillage' under Turkayamial} Municipality,^{Abdulalpurmett"itanOat'Ranga Reddy District' and nbn-initiating to} protect^{the petitioner from the illegal activitiesof the respondent Nos'7to 15 is} highly^{illegal,arbitrary and violationof Principlesof Natural Justiceand also in} violation^{of Articles' 1t4' 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of Indiaand} Nos'5^{and 6 to provide protection to the} consequently^directthe '"tpond"nt petitioner^{life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioners plotpropertyto} an extent^{of 204 Sq yards in House / Plot No 83 in Sy'No'240' 241 and242} respectively^{which is situatedat shivaji .Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh} Reddy^{Venture)' Ku*rnug'OuVillage' under TurkayamialMunicipality'} Abdulalpurmet^{Mandal, Ranga Reooy District, to protect the petitioner from the} illegal^{activities of the respondent Nos'7 to1 5'}

¶88

IAN^o"2OF2025

¶89

ing that^{in the circumstancesstated} Petition^{under Section 151 CPC pray} the^{High Courtmay be Pleased to} in th^{e affidavitfilqd in support of the petition'} rotection^{to the petitioner life and} direct^{the respondent Nos'S and 6 to provide p} lot ProPertY^{to an extentof 204} libertY^{as well as protectionto the petitioner'sp} 1 and^{242 resPectivelYwhichls} Sq. Yard^{s in House/ Plot No'83 in Sy'No 240' 24} d Ramesh^{ReddYVenture)'} situated^{ai -shivaiiNagar(SridharReddY an} Kammaguda^{Village' under TurkaYamlalMuniciPalitY, AbdulalPurmet Mandal'} Ranga^{ReddYDistrict' to Protect the Petitioner from the illegal activities of the} respondent^{Nos'7 to 15 Pending disposal of the writ Petition'}

¶90

IAN^O:1OF2025

¶91

tances^stated Petition^{under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circums} be^{pleased to} intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmay ivities of^the direct^{the responden: Nos'5 and 6 to control the illegalab1} in resPect^of respondent^{Nos'7 to '5' who are creatingthe panicsituation} asuring^{to an} venture^{of "sridhar Fleddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture"adme} extent.^{of 204 Sq yards in House / Plot No'83in Sy No'240'} 241 aod²⁴² Village,^under respectively^{which is situated at ShivajiNagar' Kammaguda} )istrict.^{and to} Turkayamjal^{Municipality' AbdulalpurmetMandal'Ranga ReddyI} rtection^{to the} provide^{protectionto the petitioner life and liberty as well as pr} lisposal^{of the} petitioner's^{plot prope rty to an extent of 204 Sq yards pending} writ Petition.

¶92

Counsel^{for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLUBHASKAR}

¶93

Counsel^{for the Resp'ondents No'1to6:GP FOR HOME}

¶94

Counsel^{for the Respondents No'7to15 :}

¶95

W.P.N^{o.103180F2025}

¶96

Between:

¶97

vee,^R/o 'Mandal,

¶98

y,:f 'n*1ll"gfl 3ll-'ill#'["1fI;3gS:,qP;,'-:i:.{"'ilid'3:'A'::[':lHJ? Ranga^{ReddYDistrict}

¶99

AND

¶100

I s ec reta ry'^{H c m e De pa rtm e nt'}

¶101

1. U:,.:8*:,g^{J fi ',?tY ?H,5SS;'0'*it.ti[,T"}

¶102

TheDirectorCeneralofPolice'TelagnanaState'Hyderabad

¶103

The Commissioner^{of Police'RachakondaCommissionerate Hyderabad'} nd a comn^{i ssio nerate'L' B'}

¶104

L:"n J^{3?Ji:Y" l;"flruT$st,if,3,?,':?:' ^'"n"ko}

¶105

TheAssistant(]ommissionerofPolice,-VanasthalipuramCi"cle'Rachakonda C,oil;E i;;"^{a1e, Ransa ReddYDistrict'}

¶106

TheStationHouseofficer,VanasthalipuramPolicestaton'Rachakonda Commissione'ate.

¶107

7 35lS:1"[:'a[t?,I{,i,',351f,^{:i,"itri.i"?+''fP'"S''#;Hl'&"JB?l'ko""}

¶108

Gundla Yadamma, D/o^{Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 34 years,Occ'} - l{ousenoh, R/o Upial Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District'

¶109

Smt. Balamani, Wo^{Rangaiah,Aged about.41years, Occ'Household,R/o} Uppal Village, liayathnagai^{Taluk, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶110

'l0.Baby Anusha, D/o Late G. Padma, aged about 9 years, Occ Minor, Rep' by her next friend^grand mother^{PetitionerNo.1}

¶111

11.Soma Shivashanker, S/o^{Mallaiah, Agedabout} J2yea|s,^{Occ' Household,R/o} Uppal Village, Hayathnagar^{Taluk, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶112

12.Soma Sabitha, Dio G.^{Yadamma,Aged about25 y-qars,H'No'4-245,Rl/o} Hanmapur Village, Bhongiri^{Mandal,Yadadri-Bhongiri District'}

¶113

Alla Rama Kirshna, S/o^{Late Alla Sambaiah,Aged about 64-years,} .Occ' Retired Emolovee, Rl/o^{VillaNO.42, CyberMeadows,Masjid Banda,Near} Vileiha Super Madiet, Kondapur,^{Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District'}

¶114

'l4.Mr. Sved Mohammed Aslam, S/o Late Syed lVlohammed Ali, Aged 58^years' Occ. 6usiness, R/o H.No.10-3-296,^{Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad'}

¶115

15.Mr. Raarvan Shaik, S/o^{ShaikMoulana Sharee!Aged} -43 .years,-Occ' - ausineii, nyo nat ruir.ZOa, R/o H'No.10-2-37, Nest Dolphin Apartment, Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad.

¶116

...RESPONDENTS

¶117

Petition under Article^{226 ot the constitutionof lndiapraying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue an order or direction^{more particularly one in the natureof Writ} of Mandamus declaring the^{actionof the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in non-initiating} to^{provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the} petitioners house property to an^{extent of 204 Sq yards in Plot No'4in} Sy.No.240, 241 and 242^{respeclivelywhich is situated at shivajiNagar(Sridhar} Reddy and Rames! Reddy^{Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamzal} Municipality, Abdulatpurmet^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,and non-initiatingto} protect the petitioner from the illegal^{activitiesof the respondentNos.7to 15 is} highly illegal, arbitrary^{and violationof Principlesof Natural Justiceand also in} violation of A,rticles, 14,21^{and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and} consequently direct the^{respondent Nos.S and 6 to provide protection to the} petitioner life and liberty as well as^{protection to the petitioner's house property} to an extent of 204 Sq.^{yards in in Plot No.4 in Sy.No.240,241 and 242} respectively which is situated at^{Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddyand Ramesh} Reddy venture), Kammaguda Village,^{under TurkayamzalMunicipality,}

¶118

Abdulalpurmet^{Mandal, Ranga ReddyDistrict' to protectthe petitionerfrom the} illegal activities^{of ther espondent Nos'7 to 1 5'}

¶119

IANO:1O F²⁰²⁵

¶120

Petition under^{Siection151 CPC prayingthat in the circum:';tances stated} in the affidavit^{filedin support of the petition,tne Hilh courtmay be pleased to} direct the^{respondentNos'5 and 6 to control the illegalac ivities bf the} respondent^{Nos.7 to 15, who are creatingthe panicsituationin respectof} venture of^{"sridhar Fleddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture"adme'asuring to an} extent of^{204 Sq. ya'clsin Plot No'4 in Sy'No'240' 241 and 212 respectively} which is situated^{at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village' unde' Turkayamzal} Municipality,^{AbdulalpurmetMandal,Ranga Reddy DistrictaT d to provide} protectiontothepetitionerlifeandlibertyaswellasprotectiontothepetitioner,S house^{propertyto arl extent of 204 Sq' yards pendingdispo:;al, of the writ} petition.

¶121

IA NO :2OF²⁰²⁵

¶122

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circun'stancesstated} in the affidavit^{filedirr support of the petition' the High Courl mar"be pleased to} direct the^{respondent Nos.5 and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner life and} liberty as^{well as protection to the petitioner's house propertyto an extent of 204} Sq.^{yardsin Plot No.4 in Sy.No'240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated} at Shivaji^{Nagar (Slidhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture)'Kammaguda} Village, under^{Turka yamzal Municipality,Abdulalpurmet MandalRanga Reddy} District,toprotectthe.petitionerfromtheillegalactivitiesoftherel;pondentNos'7 to¹ 5^{pendingdisposal of the writ petition'}

¶123

Counsel for^{the Petitioner : SRI RAPOLUBHASKAR}

¶124

Counsel for^{the Res;:ondentsNo'lto6: GP FOR HOME}

¶125

Counsel forthe^{RespondentsNo'7tol5:} -

¶126

The Court made^{the following: COMMON ORDER}

¶127

THE HON'BLE SRT ]USTTCE^{T. VINOD KUMAR}

¶128

Writ P os. 10268, 10307 and 10318 of 2025

¶129

coM MON ORDER:

¶130

Since the^{grievance of the petitionersin all theseWritPetitionsis} one and the^{same, they are being disposed of by this common order.}

¶131

Heard learned^{counsel for the petitioners, learnedGovernment} Pleader for Home^{appearingfor respondentNos.1to 6 in all these Writ} Petitions, and^{with the consent of the learnedcounselappearingFor the} parties, the Writ Petitions^{are takenup for hearinganddisposal at the} admission stage.

¶132

Having regard to^{the mannerof disposal of the Writ Petitionsat the} admission stage^{and the natureof /s involved, this Courtis of the view} that notice^{to unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 15 in all the WritPetitionsis} not necessary^{for adjudication of the presentWrit Petitions'}

¶133

The case of the^{petitioners in all these Writ Petitions,in brief, is} that they are the bona^{fide purchasersof the subject plots/landsituatedat} Shivaji Nagar,^{Kammaguda Village,TurkayamjalzalMunicipality,} Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga^{Reddy District, from theirprevious vendors,} obtained permissions from the^{concernedGHMC,madeconstructionsand} are living therein.

¶134

¶135

It is the further case oF the petitioners that th( unofficial respondents here,ir are now claiming the subject land by virtue of the final decree dt.09.09.,1,124 passed in O.S.No.361 of .1984 by the J Additionat Senior Civil Judgr: Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, which u,as filed by the unofficial resJlrtndents herein for partition of the subject prc,perty; that though the suit vvas pending at the time when the petitioners purchased the subject plots they were not made parties to the aforesai,J suit, nor informed of the p,snflsncy of the said suiu and thus, being, bona fide purchasers, they are to be protected from interference being caused by the unofficial respondents herein, who are seeking to dispossess them from their respective plots.

¶136

Petitioners fufther contend that since, the unofficial re spondents are seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land they had approached the respondents-authorities by submitting representations seeking for policr: protection to their life and liberty ancJ als,) to their property, and .in spite of the petitioners approaching respondentsauthorities. the rr::;pondents-authorities are not extending thr required protection, which action of the respondents-authorities it is conr:ended as highly illegal and erbitrary.

¶137

Per contra, learned Government pleader for Home app :aring on behalf of respond()nt Nos.1 to 6 would submit that the petitior,ers claim / themselves:to be thg pr,a6.sers of the suit schedule propery, which

¶138

¶139

origlnally belong to Kosika Pentaiah and 10 others, represented by their Power of Attorney Holders, who sold the subject plots to various people by executing registered sale deeds, even though the subject^propety was subject matter of suit, videO.S.No.361 of 1984.

¶140

B. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the petitioners had purchased the subject property during the pendency of the proceedings before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, vide O.S.No.361 of t984, which is ended in favour of the unofficial respondents herein.

¶141

Learned Government Pleader further submits that since the petitioners are pendente lite purchasers from the persons claiming themselves to be the owners of the suit schedule^property, petitioners cannot claim any better title than the one enjoyed by their vendors.

¶142

Learned Government Pleader further submits that since, the unofficial respondents herein have succeeded in the suit, the request of the petitioners foi being^provided with^{police protection} to their life and liberty as well as to their property cannot be considered by the authorities.

¶143

Learned Government Pleader would further submit that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the decree passed by the concerned Civil Court, in respect of the suit schedule property,^yriCe O.S.No.361 of 1984, they have to avail civil remedies^provided under law and cannot approach

¶144

¶145

the respondent:;authorities seeking police aid, without talring further action in assailing the said judgment and decree.

¶146

!2 I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

¶147

Though tl'€) petitioners craim themserves to be bona fide purchasers of the subject lands from their vendors and are not being paties to the suit, it is to be n,rted that the original owner of the suit schedL le property was a party to the suit, videO.S.No.361 of 1984 and the said p,trty having sold the subject gl.operty during the pendenry of the suit, the same wourd be covered by drctrine of lis pendens provided under Sectior 52 ofthe Transfer of Proper'y Act, 1882.

¶148

Further, ttrr: petitioners, who claim themselves tct be bona frde purchasers of suriect plots/land, are required to assail the final decree dt.09.09.20?-4, if they are aggrieved by the said decree pass,:d against their vendor's vendor.

¶149

Since, it.is not shown to this Court of the petitioners iaking any steps to assail th. judgment and decree dt.Og.Og.2O24, in O.S.No.361 of 1984, this court is of the view that the petitioners cannot approach the respondents-authcrrities and seek for police protection to themse,lves or to their property, thereby, frustrating the decree obtained by the ;uccessful party to the civil suit, rzdeO.S.No.361 of 19g4.

¶150

¶151

¶152

Further, it is also to be noted that if the petitioners claim oF themselves not being aware of pending litigation and thus being bona fide purchasers, they are required to initiate action against their vendor and vendor's vendor, since, the sale deeds, under which the subject property has been purchased by them, provide for indemnity, in the event of any defect in title.

¶153

For the above reason, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should be relegated to avail the civil remedies, against the judgment and decree dt.09.09.2024 in O.S.No.361 of 1984, instead of approaching the respondents-authorities and seeking for police protection, as noted above.

¶154