Smt. Challa Shahikala Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Challa Shahikala, W/o Challa Ram Reddy, aged about^{44 years, Occ.} Housewife, Rl/o Plot No.52, Sivaji Nagar, Kammaguda,^{TurkayamjalVillage,} Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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} Jears,^Occ. Household,'Rl/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar^{Taluk,Ranga Reddy District.}

¶19

Gundla Yadamma, D/o Gundla Jangaiah,^{Aged about34 years,Occ.} Household, R/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar^{Taluk, RangaReddy District.}

¶20

Smt. Balamani, W/o Rangaiah, Aged about^{41 yearc,Occ. Household,Rl/o} Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶21

10.Baby Anusha, Dio Late G. Padma, aged about I^{ydars, Occ. Minor, Rep. by} her next friend grand mother Petitioner^No.1

¶22

1 1 . Soma Shivashanker, Sio Mallaiah, Aged about^{22 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o} Uppal Village, Hayathnagar Taluk,^{Ranga ReddyDistrict.}

¶23

12.Soma^{Sabitha., D/o G. Yadamma,Aged about25 years, H.No.4-245, No} Hanmapur Village, Bhongiri Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District.

¶24

'1 3. AIla Rama Kirshna, S/o Late Alla Sambaiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Retired Employee, Rio Villa NO.42, Cyber Meadows, Masjid Banda, Near Vijetha Super Market, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.

¶25

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

¶26

15.Mr. Razwan Shaik, Sio Shaik Moulana Sh5ieef, Aged 43^years, Occ. Business, R/o flat No.204, Rl/o H.No.10-2-37, Nest Dolphin Apartment,'Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad

¶27

.,.RESPONDENTS

¶28

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of [\ilandamus declaring the action of 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 plot property to an extent of 204 Sq. yards in Plot No.52 in^'Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal tvlunicipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and non-initiating to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 is highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles, 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 petitioners plot property to an extent of 204 Sq. yards in Plot No.52 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectivelywhich is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15.

¶29

IA NO:^'f OF 2025

¶30

Petition under Section 151 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 respondent Nos.S and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's plot property to an extent of 204

¶31

q. yards in Plot No.52 in Sy.No.240, 241 & 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), Kammaguda^Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet [\rlandal, Ranga Reddy District,^to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶32

!A NO: 2 OF 2025

¶33

Petition under Section 151 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 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} venture of^"Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture" admeasuring to^an extent of 204 Sq. yards in Plot No.52 in Sy.No.240, 241 &242 respectively^which is 'situated at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and io^provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the^petitioner's plot property to an extent of 204 Sq. yards pending disposal of the writ^petition.

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR

¶35

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO: 10727 OF 2025

¶37

Between:

¶38

T. Govardhan Reddy, S/o T. Hanumanth Reddy, aged about^{46 years,Occ-} Business, Fl/o Plot No.84 and 85, Sivaji Nagar, Kammaguda,^Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶39

...PETITIONER

¶40

AND

¶41

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,^{HomeDepartment,} Secretari-at-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 Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate,^L.B. Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District.

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

Gundla Raiamma. Wo Grrnr a tonaa;-h A ^

¶48

i";;;i"i,j,fi ,;i^j?p,iffi h35,"hd:i,1#i"%1??,,f,?"H,,i'f H,"r%r,years,occ-

¶49

' SJxSl?."[:fliTUE;,p,1?,,gJ, ,lji,",r^:%],,f,l1,"f,"H,"oloo, J3if;"i o*9. Smt. Balamani. Wo Rangaiah,.Aged about 41 ygars, Occ_ Household, Rlio Uppat Vilase, nayatrnasa"rlii,j(, ffi #HAey B,.tri.,.

¶50

'10. Baby Anusha, D/o Late G. partm: 2rra.{ -}r^,,+ rr her next rrieno srand-m;3;lftifft,frt"?fl ft31r" ' vears, occ- Minor, Rep. bv

¶51

""- H o u s e h o,d,

¶52

" RiJljfS' \i l,X6:lA.;,:{; "Y#fl I ; fl ',i*Al"-ffi? il?$ii;, l2.Soma.Sabitha Soma Sabitha, D/o G. yadamn g.".+zas,'^{ivo'"'rilnr"pri-'virrlg"l} a'n?iiji'ri',,i;rf$Sfl *oorj.fi#o.ifi1

¶53

"Al?'sr?.J5Jl*:r}"xEii.1:i,ry"3ji'tr;,f, :H,i'g[1ffi ;s*;

¶54

'03:"_'63,9".31Hfl ?fl ,f"oiilag&:ftf,'J,i,."K:!:[ffi 5#,Aged58years, .'yJ"i[$ilj1"",ilf

¶55

h3J?8rh,u:il1,i,:?,T3,"3"flfl ?,.^l:_f#i,,?ff ;

¶56

...RESPONDENTS

¶57

petition under Articre 226 0t the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in non-initiating to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as we, as protection to the petitioners prot property to an extent of 520 Sq. yards in prot No.B4 and 85 in sy No'240' 241 and 242 respectivery which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Gundra Srisailam and pochaiah Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamj al Municiparity' Abdurarpurmet Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, and non-initiating to protect the petitioner from the iregar activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 is highly illegar, arbitrary and vioration of principres of Naturar Justice and arso in violation of Articles, 14,21 and 300_4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequenty direct the respondent Nos.S and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner rife and riberty as we, as protection to the petitioners prot property to

¶58

ne^{xtent of 520 Sq. yardsin Plot No.84and 85 in Sy.No.240,241 and242} respectively^{which is situatedat Shivaji Nagar (Gundla} Srisailam and Poihaiah Venture), Kammaguda Vil.lage, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to^'t 5.

¶59

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶60

Petition under Section 15'l 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 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 venture of "Gundla Srisailam & Pochaiah Venture" admeasuring to an extent of 520 Sq. yards in Plot No.84 & 85 in Sy.No.240, 241 &242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District- and to provide proteciion to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioners plot property to an extent of 520 Sq. yards pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶61

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶62

Petition under Section 151 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 respondent Nos.S and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's pldt property to an extent of 520 Sq. yards in Plot Nb.84 & 85 in Sy.No.240, 241 & 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Gundla Srisailam & Pochaiah Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶63

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR

¶64

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME

¶65

IT PETITION^{NO: 10730OF 2025}

¶66

Between:

¶67

Gelli Varalakshmi, W/o Srinivasa Rao, aged about 43 years, Occ. Housewife, R:/o Plot No.3B, Siyaji Nagar, Kammaguda, Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶68

...PETITIONER

¶69

AND

¶70

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

¶71

The Director General of Police, Telagnana State, Hyderabad.

¶72

The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Hyderabad.

¶73

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

¶74

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

¶75

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

¶76

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

¶77

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

¶78

Smt. Balamani, Wo Rangaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Household, Rt/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District.

¶79

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

¶80

11.9oma Shivashanker, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 22 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o Uppal Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District.

¶81

12.Soma Sabitha, D/o G. Yadamma, Aged about 25 years, H.No.4-245, No Hanmapur Village, Bhongiri Mandal, Yddadri-Bhongiri'District.

¶82

13.Alla Rama Kirshna, S/o Late Alla Sambaiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Retired Employee, Rl/o Villa NO.42, Cyber Meailows, Masjid B'anda, Near Vijetha Super Market, Kondapur, Serilingjampally, Ranga RediJy District-

¶83

14.Mr. Syed Mohammed Aslam, S/o Late Syed Mohammed Ali, Aqed 58 vears. Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 10-3-296, Humayun Nagar, Hydera6adl

¶84

15.Mr. Razwan Shaik, S/o Shaik Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years, Occ. Business, Rt/o flat No.204, R/o H.No.10-2-37, Nest Dolphin Apartinent, Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad.

¶85

...RESPONDENTS

¶86

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

¶87

I IIIi E

¶88

Ieased^{to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the natureof Writ} of Mandamus^{declaringthe action of the respondent Nos.5} and 6 in^{non-initiating} to^{provide protection} to the^petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's plot property to an extent of 204 Sq. yards in Plot No.3B in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), Kammaguda i/illage, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and non-initiatihg to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 is highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles, 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 plot property to an extent of 204 Sq. yards in Plot No.3B in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmei Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15.

¶89

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶90

Petition under Section 151 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 respondent Nos.5 and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner life and Iiberty as well as protection to the petitioner's plot property to an extent of 204 Sq. yards in Plot No.38 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶91

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶92

Petition under Section 151 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 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

¶93

venture of "Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture" admeasuring to an extent of 204 Sq. yards in Plot No.3 B in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner,s plot property to an extent of 204 Sq. yards pending dlsposal of the writ petition.

¶94

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR

¶95

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME

¶96

WRIT PETITION NO: 10767 OF 2025

¶97

Between:

¶98

Smt. Madduri Punyavathi, Wo Narayana, aged about 30 years, Occ. Housewife, Rio Plot No55, Sivaji Nagar, Kammaguda, Turkayamlal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶99

...PETITIONER

¶100

AND

¶101

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

¶102

2 The Director General of Potice, Telagnana State, Hyderabad.

¶103

The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Hyderabad.

¶104

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

¶105

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

¶106

The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda Commissioner'ate.

¶107

Gundla Rajamma, Wo Gundla Jangaiah, Aqed about 62 vears. Occ. Household, R/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Talu( Ranga Reddy 6istrici.

¶108

Gundla Yadamma, D/o, Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk-, Ranga Reddy 6istriit.

¶109

Smt. .Qq!9min!, W/o Rangaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Household, Rio Uppal Village, hayathnagai Tatuk, Ranga Reddy district.

¶110

'l0.Baby Anusha, D/o Late 9. pqdfg,aged about 9 years, Occ. Minor, Rep. by her next friend grand mother Petitionei No.1

¶111

11.9oma thivashanker, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 22 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o Uppal Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ringa Reddy District.

¶112

12.9oma Sabitha., D/o G. Yadamma, Aged about 25 years, H.No.4-245, No Hanmapur Village, Bhongiri Mandal,^{yaidadri-Bhongiri} bistrict.

¶113

t3.Alla^{Rama Kirshna, S/o. LateAlla Sambaiah,Aged about64 years, Occ.} Retired Employee,^FL/o Villa NO.42, Cyber Meadows, lt/asjid^Banda,Near Vijetha Super Market, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.'

¶114

14.Mr. Syed Mohammed Aslarh, S/o Late Syed Mohammed Ali,^{Aged 58 years,} Occ. Business, Rio H.No.10-3-296, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶115

15.Mr. Razwan Shaik, S/o Shaik Moulana Shareef, Aged 43^years, Occ. Business, Rio flat No.204, Rio H.No.10-2-37, Nest Dolphin Apartment, Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad.

¶116

...RESPONDENTS

¶117

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in non-initiating to provide protection to the^petitioner life and liberty as well as^protection to the petitioner's plot property to an extent of 244.44 Sq. yards in Plot No.55 and admeasuring 244.44 in Plot No.64, totaling admeasuring 488.88 Sq.^{yards in} Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 rcspectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar^(Hari Kishan Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurniet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and non-initiating to^protectthe petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to^'1 5, who are engaged the unsocial elements and creating^panic situations, by^havingthe deadly weapons and threatening to dispossess the^petitioner from^{his house} property during the pendency of partition suit and trying to vacate the petitioner from his house is highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of^Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles, 14, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution^of lndia and consequently direct the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to^{provide protection} to the petitioner life and liberty as well as^protection to the^{petitioner'splot} property to an extent of 244.44 Sq. yards in Plot No.55 and admeasuring 244.44 in Plot No.64, totaling admeasuring 488.88 Sq.^yards in Sy.No.240,^{241 and 242} respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar^(Hari Kishan^{Reddy Venture),} Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet^Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the^petitioner from the illegal^activities of^the respondent Nos.7 to 15.

¶118

IA^{Noz 1 OF 2O25}

¶119

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to d.irect 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 venture of "Hari Kishan Reddy Venture" admeasuring to an extent of 244.44 Sq. yards in Plot No.55 and admeasuring 244.44 in Plot No.64, totaling admeasuring 488.88 Sq. yards in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respeclively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's plot property totaling an extent of 488.88 Sq. yards pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶120

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶121

Petition under Section 151 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 respondent Nos.5 and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's plot property to an extent of 244.44 Sq. yards in Plot No.55 and admeasuring 244.44 in Plot No.64, totaling admeasuring 488.88 Sq. yards in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Hari Kishan Reddy.Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal l\ilunicipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶122

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR

¶123

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME

¶124

WRIT PETITION NO: 10819 OF 202s

¶125

Between:

¶126

Kadari .Vijaya Lakshmi, Wo Anjaneyulu, aged about 34 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o Plot No.40 (West Part1, Sivali N5gar, Kammaguda, Tuikayam Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga' Redd! Disirici.

...PET|T|ONER

I

AND

'l . The State of reranoana, Rep. .by. its principar secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buitdingl Secietaiiat,'f yrieraOirii-'

¶131

The Director General of police, Telagnana State, Hyderabad.

¶132

The commissioner of porice, Rachakonda commissionerate, Hyderabad.

¶133

The Deputy commissioner. of police, Rachakonda commissionerate, L.B. Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District.

¶134

The Assistant commissioler o.f porice, vanastharipuram circre, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy Distriit.

¶135

6 Ilg uommtsstonerate._9lr]!"n House Officer, Vanasthalipuram police Station, Rachakonda

¶136

Gundla Rajgrmma, Wo Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Househotd, Rl/o Uppat Viilage, hayathnigiiiatuk", Ranga R;ddy di;iill. -

¶137

Gundla Yad_amma, D/o Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Househotd, R/o UppatVilase, hayathnigaiTarutl Cang;RLd;i disiili. -

¶138

I P,ll.,Qqlprani, Wio Rangaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Househotd. RIo Uppat Viilage, hayathnagai Tatuk, Ranga RedOv 6isiiiii.

¶139

10.Baby Anusha, D/o Late G. padma, aged about g years, Occ. Minor, Rep. by her next friend grand mother ResponO"eni flo. 7

¶140

1^'l . s.oma S.hivashanker, S/o Mailaiah, Aged about 22 years, occ. Househord, Rl/o Uppal Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, R5nga ReOOV Oistrict.

¶141

12.S.oma Sabitha, D/o G. yadamma, Aged about 25 years, H.No.4_245, No Hanmapur Viilage, Bhongiri [t/andai, VSOaOri_Anongiri bistrict.

¶142

13.AIla Rama Kirshna, -S/o. .late..Alla_ Sambaiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ. R.etired Emptoyee, R/q Viila NO.42, Cybei lrriead"ow", ffiiiiiO'e'";.Au', [J Vijetha super Market, Kondapur, serrtin<iampaity, nangi n"otiv o-isii[i]^""

¶143

14.Mr. Syed Mohammed.Aslam, S/o Late Syed Mohammed AIi, Aged 58 years, Occ. Business, Ryo H.No.10-3-296, Humayun Nigar, Hyderib;a:--^-- ''-'

¶144

15.Mr..Razwan Shaik, S/o Shaik Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o flat No.204, R:io H.No.10_2_sz, Nist Doip"nin nplrti,iii'eii* Ghat, Hyderabad.

¶145

...RESPONDENTS

¶146

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in non-initiating to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's house property to an extent of 122.22 Sq. yards in plot No.40 (west

¶147

Part) in sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectivery which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Hari Kishan Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamzal Municipality, Abdurarpurmet Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, and- non-initiating to protect the petitioner from the iflegar activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 is highly illegal, arbitrary and vioration of principres of Naturar Justice and arso in violation of Articres, 14, 21 and 300-4 of the. constitution of rndia and consequenfly direct the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner life and riberty as weil as protection to the petitioner's house property to an extent of 122.22 Sq. yards in plot No.40 (West part) in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectivery which is situated at shivaji Nagar (Hari Kishan Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamzal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the iilegar activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15

¶148

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶149

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to contror the iregar activities of the respondent Nos'7 to 15, who are creating the panic situation in respect of venture of "Hari Kishan Reddy Venture" admeasuring to an extent of 122.22 sq. yards in Prot No.40 (west part) in sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectivery which is situated at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamzal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and to provide protection to the petitioner rife and ribbrty as we, as protection to the petitioner,s house property to an extent oI 122.22 Sq. yards pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶150

IANO:2OF2 025

¶151

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent Nos.S and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as wefl as protection to the petitioner,s house property to an extent of 122.22 Sq. yards in ptot No.40 (West part) in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectivery which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Hari Kishan Reddy venture), Kammaguda vilrage, under Turkayamzar [\runiciparity, Abdurarpurmet Mandar,

¶152

Ranga^{ReddyDistrict, to protectthe petitionerfrom the illegal activities of the} respondent Nos.7 to^{15 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass}

¶153

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{RAPOLU BHASKAR}

¶154

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME

¶155

The Court made the following:^COMMON ORDER

¶156

I I

¶157

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICET' VINOD KUMAR} W.P.Nos . to662 10727 .1 o730^{LO767and 1()819of 2025}

¶158

COMMON^ORDER:

¶159

Sincc, the^{lis involvcdin thcse Writ Petitions is one and the} same, they^{arc being taken up for hearing and disposalby this} common^order

¶160

tleard learncd^{counsel for thepetitioners' learned} Government^{P1e adcr1or Homeappearing for officialrespondents'} and vrrith^{Lhe conscntof the learncd counsel appearing for the} partics, both^{thc Wnt Petitions are taken up for hearing and} clisposal^{at the admission stage'}

¶161

I{aving^{regarcl lo the natu re of lis involved in these Writ} pctitions and the manner^{of disposal,this ccurt is .f Lhe vier'r'that} notice to^{tlnofhcialrespondentsin ail the r'vril pe titions is not} necessary^{for acljuclication of the present Writ Petitions'}

¶162

When thc^{maLtersare takcrLup for hearing'Iearned counsel} for thc^{petitioners and learned Governmcnt Pleader lor HoIne} appearing^{for the respective respondents' in all thc writ petitions'} submit^{Lhal ihc issue invotveclin these Writ Petitionsis squarcly} covcred^{by zr dccisiorr of this Court in WP No 10243 of 2025'} dL.O7.O4.2A25,^{and the said orlcr v''ouldapply in all forccto the} facts of the Present^cases'

¶163

2

¶164

Recording the same, for reasons alike as were shted in the Writ Petirion, uzde W.p.No. 10243 of 2025, d,t.OT.O4.2O2S,and in terms thereof, the present Writ petitions are also disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶165

6 Registry is directed to append a copy of the order passed in W.P.No. 10243 of 2025, d,t.O..O4.2025, ro this order.

¶166

7 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending sh I stand closed.

¶167

SD.K.SREERAMA URTHY DEPUry ISTRAR //TRUE COPYII

¶168

\

¶169

SECTION OFFICER

¶170

To, SECTION OFFICER ' I33J,.i'ff[i3,Tl?t1 ; Ir"#e Depa rtment, s ecreta riat B uird ins, secreta riat,

¶171

The Director General of police, Telagnana State, Hyderabad.

¶172

The Commissioner of police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Hyderabad. _

¶173

l:3,PBf#:Y"f"#ruT,fi:Sl,:1,ff,;t", Rachakonda commissionerate, L B.

¶174

5 The Assistant Commissior uommissionerate, Ranga A"Ja:iB",l',t,gi^{vanasthalipuram} circle, Rachakonda

¶175

6 I3ffi,gi3l"[?"lse^{officer,vanasthatipurampoticestation,} Rachakonda

¶176

7 One CC to SRI RApOLU BHASKAR, Advocate [OPUC]

¶177

B Iff"r:ff.ibfiP^{FoR HoME,High court ror the state} or retangana at

¶178

9 Two CD Copies

¶179

,aAA'onn with the copy of order dated 07.04.2025, in W.p.No. 10242 ot 2025)

¶180

LS 6

.--:,t'-'.--

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 010412025

11-lE S 14 r+ 'l
o F
(
e,(
-)
.)
O 2 3 APn 20[

¶185

COMMON ORDER

¶186

WRIT PETITION NOs: 10662,10727,10730,10767 & 10819 0F 2025

¶187

DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS

¶188

Crcd'-l

¶189

t

¶190

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{T. VINOD KUMAR}

¶191

Writ Petition N os.a0243, 1026A,¹⁰³⁰⁷ and 10318 of 2025

¶192

COMMO ORDER:

¶193

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

¶194

Heard learned counsel for the^petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 6 in all these Writ Petitions, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the pafties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal .at the admission stage.

¶195

Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petitions at the admission stage and the nature of^{rrc involved,} this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 15ⁱⁿ all the Writ Petitions^is not necessary for adjudication of the^presentWrit Petitions.

¶196

The case of the^petitioners in all these Writ Petitions, in brief,^is that they are th€ 6oaa r/de^purchasers of the^{subject plots/land} situated at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village,^{TurkayamjalzalMunicipality,} Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,^from their^previous vendor5, obtained^permissions from the concerned GHMC,^{made constructions and} are living therein.

¶197

It is the further case of the petitioners that the unofficial respondents herein are now claiming the subject land by virtue of the final decree dt.09.09.2024 passed in O.S.No.361 of 1984 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, which was filed by the unofficial respondents herein for partition of the subject propefi; that though the suit was pending at the time when the petitioners purchased the subject plots, they were not made parties to the aforesaid suit, nor informed of the pendency oF the said suit; and thus, being, 6o4a de 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.

¶198

Petitioners further contend that since, the unofficial respondents are seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, they had approached the respondents-authorities by submitting representations seeking for police protection to their life and libefi and also to their property, and^.in spite of the petitioners approaching respondentsauthorities, the respondents-authorities are not extending the required protection, which action of the respondents-authorities it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶199

7 . per co/, rd, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6 would submit that the petitioners claim themselves to be the purchasers of the suit schedule propefi, which

¶200

3

¶201

originally belong to^{KosikaPentaiah and 10 others' representedby their} Power of Attorney^{Holders, whosold the subject plots to various people by} executing^{registeredsale deeds, even thoughtlle subject property was} subject matter^{of suit, vrae O'S'No'361of 1984'}

¶202

B. Learned Government^{Pleaderwouldfurther submit that the} petitioners had^{purchasedthe subject property during the pendency of the} proceedingsbeforethecompetentCourtofciviljurisdiction, vid e o.S.No.36loflgS4,whichisendedinfavouroftheunofficialrespondents herein.

¶203

Learned Government^{Pleader further submits that since the} petitioners are^{peDdente/lte purchasersfrom the persons claiming} themselves^{to be the owners of the suit scheduleproperty,petitioners} cannot claim^{anybetter title than the one enjoyed by their vendors'}

¶204

Learned^{Government Pleader further submitsthat since' the} unofficialrespondentshereinhavesucceededinthesuit'therequestof the^{petitionersfor being providedwith police protectionto theirlife and} Iibertyaswellastotheirpropertycannotbecons|deredbytheauthorities.

¶205

Learned^{Government Pleader would further submitthat if the} petitioners are^{aggrievedby the decree passed by the concernedCivil} Court,^{in respectof the suit schedule property,vrae O'S'No'361of 1984'} they have^{to avail civil remedies provided under law and cannotapproach}

¶206

4

¶207

the respondents-authorities seeking police aid, without taking further action in assailing the said judgment and decree.

¶208

t2. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

¶209

Though the petitioners claim themselves to be bona r/de purchasers of the subject lands from their vendors and are not being parties to the suit, it is to be noted that the original owner of the suit schedule property was a party to the suit, r,roe O.S.No.361 of 1984 and the said party having sold the subject property during the pendency of the suit, the same would be covered by doctrine of ,s pendoDs provided under Section 52.of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

¶210

Further, the petitioners, who claim themselves to b€ bona rroe purchasers of subject plots/land, are required to assail the final decree dt.09.09.2024, if they are aggrieved by the said decree passed against their vendor's vendor.

¶211

Since, it.is not shown to this Court of the petitioners taking any steps to assail the judgment and decree dt.09.09.2024, in O.S.No.361 of 1984, this Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot approach the respondents-authorities and seek for police protection to themselves or to their property, thereby, frustrating the decree obtained by the successful party to the civil suit, yrde O.S.No.361 of 1984.

¶212

5

¶213

L6, Further, it is also to be noted that if the petitioners claim of themselves not being aware of pending ritigation and thus being 6ona rroe purchasers, they are required to initiate action against their vendor and vendor's vendor, since, the sale deeds, under which the subject properiy has been purchased by them, provide for indemnity, in the event of any defect in title.

¶214

L7. For the above reason, this court is of the view that the petitioners should be relegated to avair the civir remedies, against the judgment and decree dt.09.09.2024 in O.S.No.361 of t984, instead of approaching the respondents-authorities and seeking for police protection, as noted above.

¶215

Subject to above observation, the Writ^petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶216

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shail stand closed.

¶217

Date:07.04.2025

¶218

T. VrNOD KUMA& J

¶219

GJ

Smt. Challa Shahikala v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Challa Shahikala v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Membi Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Gatram Venkateshwara Rao Vs The State Public Information Officer

Gunda Raghavulu Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Poonuri Sanath Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

P. Kalyan Chakravatrthi, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. M. Revathi Vs The State of Telangana