Disposed

R Padmavathi v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC3 Nov 2025WP/11394/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged police interference with her agricultural land at the instance of private respondents. Police denied any interference, stating no crime was registered. The court found the dispute purely civil and directed police not to interfere except in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to refrain from interfering in civil disputes or with petitioner's possession except in strict accordance with law; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

R Padmavathi Vs State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

WR|T PETlTloN NO: 11394 OF 2018

¶8

Between:

¶9

R PADMAVATHI, Ramineni Padmavathi Wo Veeraiah, aged 47 years, OccAgnculture, R/o. Gaddipally Mllage, Garidepally Mandal, Suryapet District. suryapet

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 State Of Telangana, The State of Telangana, Home Department, rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad Hyderabad.

¶13

¶14

The Superintendent of Police, Sur)€pet Diskict.

¶15

3 Sub Divisional Police Ofiioer,, Kodad, Suryapet District.

¶16

4 lnspector of Police, Huzumagar Circle,, Suryapet District

¶17

5 Sub lnspector of Police,, Garidepally Police Station, Suryapet District

¶18

t Kota Susheela, W/o. Kota Manohar or Mohan Rao aged 42^years, OccAgriculture, Rio. Manikunta Mllage, Garidepally Mandal, Suryapet District.

¶19

7 Kota Manohar @ Mohan Rao,, S/o. Kotaiah, aged 47^years, Occ- Agriculture, Ryo. Marrikunta Village, Garidepally Mandal, Suryapet District

¶20

8 Kota Prabhakar, S/o. Kotaiah, aged 40 years, Occ- Agriculture, Rio. Chikatigudam Village, Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Ariicle 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 rnore particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in collusion with respondent No.6 to 8 ifl interfering with the petitioners land to an extent of to an extent of Ac.0.37 gts., in Sy.No.296/A2, an extent of Ac.O.27 gts., in

¶23

Sy.No.221l1, an extent^{of Ac.0.19gts., in Sy.No.224lA1, Textent of Ac 2'03} gts.,inSy.No.182,andanextentofAc.2.05gts.,inSy.No,l{9/A1/l.situatedat Gaddipally Village,^{Garidepally Mandal,suryapetDistricte r d also threatening} petitioner not to enter into the land at the instance^{of respon(lr nts 6 to I and also} interfering with the civil^{disputeis highly arbitrary,badand ill: lal.}

¶24

IA NO: I OF²⁰¹⁸

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the r;i cumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Coul maybe pleased to} direct the respondents^{not to interfere with the petitioner'slnd to an extentof} Ac.O.37 gts., in Sy.No.296/A2,^{an extent of Ac.O.27gts. in Sy.No.221l1,an} extent of Ac.o.19^{gts., in Sy.No.224lA1,an extent of Ac'2.01 gts., in Sy No 182'} and an extent of^{Ac.2.05gts., in Sy.No.1AglA1l1' situated a GaddipallyVillage'} Garidepally Mandal, Suryapet^District.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl^{P. PRABHAKARREDDY}

¶27

Counsel for the Respondents^{No 1 To 5: SRt D. PRADEEP i GP FOR HOME}

¶28

Counsel for the Respondents^{No 6 To 8:} -'

¶29

The Court made the following:^ORDER

l I I I

I I

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE IT.TT'KARATUJI

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.11394 OF 2018

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 bf Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

¶37

"...to issue an order or direction more particuJarly one in^the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in collusion with respondent Nos.6 to 8 in interfering with the petitioner's land to an extent of Ac.0.37 guntas in Survey No.296/A2, an extent of Ac.O.27 guntas in Survey No.221/A1, an extent of Ac.O.19^guntas in Survey No.224lAl, an extent of Ac.2.O3 guntas in Survey No.182, ald an extent of Ac.2.05 guntas in Survey No.189/A1/1, situated at Gaddipally Village, Garidepally Mandal, Suryap€t District^and also threatening petitioner not to enter into the land at^the instance of respondent Nos.6 to 8 and also interfering with^the civil dispute is highly arbitrary, bad and illega-l and^pass..."

¶38

Heard Mr. P.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 5.

¶39

lrarned counsel for t]re petitioner submits that^as respondent Nos. 2 to 5 have been interfering with the^petitioner's land at the instance of r,rnoflicial respondent Nos. 6 to 8,^the present writ petition has been hled seeking appropriate directions from this Court.

¶40

The learned Assistant Govemment Pleader for^Home,on written instruclions, submits that the allegation that^the respondent-police authorities are interfering with the^petitioner's

¶41

¶42

landed property is baseless. It is further subrnitted hat there $as no occasion for tJle police to interfere, as no cr me has been registered in respect of the petitioner's property.

¶43

I have perused the material available on recor l.

¶44

Having regard to the submissions made by : >th sides, and in view of the petitioner's allegation that the re r nndent-police authorities are interfering with his possession ove: the property mentioned in the petition, it is evident that the di: pute is purely civil in nature. Accordingly, the respondent-police ruthorities are directed to refrain from interfering in any civil ci;putes or with tJre petitioner's possession of the subject property :xcept in strict accordance with law and upon following due proo:r s.

¶45

With the above direction, the writ petition s alds disposed

¶46

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶47

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shai stand closed.

¶48

Sd/.!i, UALLIKARJUNA RAO AS ;ISTANT REG]STRAR ',-. (e,

//TRUE COPY//

SECNON OFFICER

To,

State Of Te.langana, Th.e State of Telangana, Home t) ,partment, rep. by its Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad hyderabad

¶53

The Superintendent of Police, Suryapet District.

¶54

Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kodad, Suryapet Diskict

¶55

lnspector of Police, Huzurnagar Circle, Suryapet Dist.i {

¶56

Sub lnspector of Police, Garidepatty Police Station, SL yapet District ^ '(^o-U

¶57

¶58

/ /

¶59

One UC to SRl.^{P PRABHAKARREDDY,Advocate IOPUC]}

¶60

7- Two CCs to^{GP FOR HOME} ,High^{Courtfor th€ State of Telangana at} Hyderabad . [OUT]

¶61

¶62

Two CD CoPies

DAN PMK

9r^C^.

I I I I I I I i i :

HIGH GOURT

DATED:0311112025

<br>

I
I

ORDER

WP.No.11394 of 2018

I
i tHE SIaii:
( \r4a'
o
C) I 5 iri,R 2f2 fi
* * {'
.ft S,:'TC r'

¶75

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOI.'T COSTS

¶76

Pt^q zq.1r-6

R Padmavathi v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Padmavathi v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D. Kishan Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Liyaqath Quarishi Vs The State of Telangana

Sri. Madhusudhan Koraboina, Vs The State of Telangana

Kandaswamy Umapathi, Rr Dist Vs Prl. Secretary, Home Dept., Hyd and 4 Others

Smt. Kambam Madaramma, Vs The State of Telanganan

S G Shankar, E.Godavari Dist Vs the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and 5 Others