Disposed

Dosali Kalavathamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Apr 2025WP/11462/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A decree-holder sought a mandamus directing police to register an FIR against respondents obstructing her enjoyment of decreed land and to provide police protection. The court held she should pursue execution and remedies under BNSS since the decree is under appeal, and disposed of the writ petition with liberty.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to avail remedies under BNSS; no costs.

Dosali Kalavathamma Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶ ]

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11462 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dosali Kalavathamma, W/o. Dosali Balaswamy, Aged about 77 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. Vengalayapalli Village of Pangal Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

Z The Superintendent of Police, Wanaparthy, Wanaparthy District. ,

¶13

J The Station House Officer, Peddamandadi, Wanaparthy District.

¶14

Chityala Venkat Reddy, S/o. Ramehandra Reddy, Aged about 48^years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Pamireddipally Village of Pedadamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

¶15

Chityala Sudharshan Reddy, S/o. Ramchandra Reddy, Aged about 44^years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Pamireddipally Village of Pedadamandadi [Vlandal, Wanaparthy District.

¶16

Chityala Karunakar Reddy, Sio. Ramchandra Reddy, Aged about 40^years, Occ. Agriculture, Rl/o. Pamireddipally Village of Pedadamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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 any writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of tvlandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 2 and 3^{in providing} police protection to the petitioner and the schedule property i.e land in Sy No. 439/AA of an extent of Ac. 2-10 Gts and land of extent of Ac.2-10 Gts in Sy No. 439/E in total Ac. 4-20 Gts of land situated in the limits of Pamireddipally^Village of Peddamandadi [/andal, Wanaparthy District as illegal, arbitrary and

¶19

uncon itutional and further not registering the FIR against the respondent no.4 to6 ursuant to the complaint dated. 16-09-2024 is illegal, arbitrary and uncon itutional and consequently direct the respondents No 2 and 3 to register the Fl against the respondent no.4 to 6 pursuant to the complaint dated. 16-09- O24 and provide police protection to the petitioner and the schedule prope i.e. land in Sy No. 439/AA of an extent 6t ec. Z-tO Gts and land of extent f Ac.2-10 Gts in Sy No. 439/E in total Ac. 4-20 cts of land situated in the limits Pamireddipally Village of Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District.

¶20

IA NO: 10F 202s

¶21

etition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the oircumstances stated in the idavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to tssue I terim direction to the respondent Nos 2 and 3 to register the FIR against the re SI poitdent no.4 to 6 pursuant to the .complaint dated. 16-09-2024 and provide police protection to the petitioner and the schedule property i.e land in Sy No. 439/AA of an extent of Ac. 2-10 Gts and land of extent of Ac. 2-10 Gts in Sy No. 439/E in total Ac. 4-2O Gts of land situated in the limits of pamireddipally Village of Peddamandadi Mandal, Wanaparthy District, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 3: GP FOR HOME

¶24

The Court made the.following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.11462 of 2025

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learnedGovernment Pleader for Home appearing for^official respondent Nos.l to 3, and with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

¶29

Having regard to the nature of lls involved in the Writ Petition and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.4 to 6 is not necessary for adjudication of the prcsent Writ Petition.

¶30

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that though she had obtained a^judgment and decree in respect of the subject land uide OS.No.28 of 2023, dt.05.f0.2023, , the unofficial respondents are not allowing the petitioner to enjoy the fruits thereof, and are threatening the petitioner.

¶31

Petitioner further contends that since, the unofficial respondents are not allowing the petitioner to enter into

¶32

¶33

her land, she has approached the respondents-authorities and submitted a representation, dt.16.O9.2O24, seeking police protection as well as registering an FIR against the unofficial respondents herein for their illegal acts; andⁱⁿ spite of the petitioner submitting the aforesaid representation, no action is being taken by^the respondents-authorities, and such inaction on the^{part of} the respondents it is contended as highly illegal^and arbitrary.

¶34

Per contra, learned Government Pleader^appearingon behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that on^the petitioner approaching the respondents-authorities and submitting a complaint, dt.16.O9.2024, the authorities have caused prelirninary enquiry and found existence^of civil disputes between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents

¶35

It is further submitted that the^respondents thereafter closed the aforesa-id complaint as "civilⁱⁿ nature", and issued intimation to the^petitioner of^the

¶36

¶37

action taken on the complaint lodged by her, through Petition Management System(PMS)

¶38

Learned Government Pleader further submits that though the petitioner claims to have obtained a judgment and decree in OS.N.2B/2023, since there is no order from the competent Civil Court to provide police protection in respect of the suit schedule property mentioned therein, the respondents-authorities cannot provide police protection, thereby involving themselves in civil disputes.

¶39

I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

¶40

While the petitioner claims to have obtained a judgment and decree in her favour by invoking the civil remedies unde OS.No.28/2023, dt.05.10.2023, however, is now seeking to set in motion criminal law for implementation of the said judgment and decree obtained by her.

¶41

Since, the petitioner has already set in motion the civil procedure in relation to the subject property and also being successful therein, ought to have taken further steps

¶42

¶43

by filing an Execution Petition (EP) for implementation/ enforcement of the judgment and decree passed in her favour, and instead, chose to approach the respondentsauthorities by lodging a complaint against the unofficial respondents claiming that the said respondents are not allowing her to enter the subject property and sought for police protection

¶44

1 1. It is to be noted that the unofficial respondents herein having assailed the judgment and decree of the Court below by way of further appeal, the same would also prevent the respondents-authorities from providing police protection as claimed by the petitioner for implementation/enforcement of the judgment and decree, which has not yet attained hnality.

¶45

Since, - the respondents-authorities having taken action on the representation, dt. 16.O9.2024, submitted by the petitioner, by closing the same as "civil in nature" and the same having been informed to the petitioner, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforesaid action taken, has to avail further remedies provided under law, and for the said

¶46

reason, cannot approach this Court by the present Writ

¶47

Petition

¶48

Granting liberty to the petitioner^to avail the^remedies provided under BNSS, the Writ Petition is disposed of.^No

¶49

order as to costs.

¶50

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if

¶51

any, shall stand closed.

¶52

¶53

To,

¶54

SD/.S. MALLIKARJUNA^RAO ASSI TANT REGISTRAR

¶55

//TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶56

1 he Principal Secretary,^{Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of} elangana.

¶57

2 he Superintendent of^{Police, Wanaparthy,Wanaparthy District'} 3 he Station House^{Officer, Peddamandadi,Wanaparthy District'}

¶58

4 ne CC to SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN^{TAYI' Advocate} [OPUC] 5 wo CCs to GP^{FORHOME, HighCourt for the State of Telanganaat} yderabad [OUT]

¶59

wo',CD Copies

BSR GJP

HIG COURT

DAT D:1710412025

OR R
WP. o.11462 of 2025

¶64

.J6
?, <br>q
(,
2 i htil ?[25
* oe'.5PAr itHE !'l

¶65

DIS OSING OF THE WRIT PETITION,
WIT OUT COSTS

¶66

if\x

Dosali Kalavathamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dosali Kalavathamma v. The 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

Ali Azgar Vs The State of Telangana

Birdharaju Sudhakar Raju Vs The State of Telangana

Maddi Saidulu Vs The State of Telangana

Konda Venkata Narasimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Devakishan Ladda Vs The State of Telangana

Chougoni Sekhar Vs The State of Telangana