Disposed

Smt. P.T.D. Lakshmi @a.T.D. Lakshmi Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Jul 2025WP/18672/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowner sought a writ direction to police for protection of her life and ancestral agricultural land against respondents alleging forgery and dispossession threats amid pending specific-performance suit and two crimes. The Court declined a direct protection mandate, holding she must represent to the SHO for threat assessment and pursue civil remedies for possession disputes.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with directions: SHO to assess threat on representation and act per law; investigations to follow law and earlier Court directives.

Smt. P.T.D. Lakshmi @a.T.D. Lakshmi Reddy Vs The State… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

I ! I I i I i i ! i I

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

I II I I I!

I ;

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

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 18672 OF 2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

Smt. P.T.D Lakshmi @ A.T.D. Lakshmi Reddy, Wio. A. Chinna Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o. Plot No.37, Kalyani Sulochana Gardens, Near lndus Universal School, Yapral, R.R. District, 500087.

¶12

.....PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

'1. The State of Tetangana,^'secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, Rep by its Principal Secretary. Home Department.

¶15

The Director General of Police, Telangana State, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad - 500 004.

¶16

The Superintendent of Police, Mahaboobnagar District, Mahaboobnagar.

¶17

The Station House Officer, Rajapur Police Station, Mahabubnagar District.

¶18

J.Anirudh Reddy, S/O Sri Dilip Reddy, Aged about 50 years, Occ- M.L.A., R/o Rangareddyguda Village, Rajapur lt4andal, Mahabubnagar District.

¶19

J. Dushyant Reddy, S/o Sri Dilip Reddy, Aged about 52 years, Occ- Business, Rl/o Rangareddyguda Village, Rajapur Mandal. Mahabubnagar District.

¶20

Srinu, Ex. MPTC, Fl/o Pedda Tanda, Mahbubnagar, Telangana.

¶21

Sri Lakshminarayana Goud, S/o Ramachandraiah Goud, Aged about 53 years, Occ- Agricutlure, Fl/o H.No.5-2-'17, Ranga Redduguda, Mahaboobnagar.

¶22

.....RESPONDENTS

¶23

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 appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing^{the respondent} nos. 2 to 4 to extend the life protection of the petitioner as well^{in her land} i.e., the agriculture lands to an

¶24

ill

¶25

extent of Ac. 39.0t] I1ts , in Sy.No. 426 to 456 situated^{at Tirumalapore Village} and GP, and Dondalap,ally Village and GP, Rajapur^{Mandal (e-stwlrile Balanagar} Mandal), Mahabrobrrzr,lar District, from the hands of the^{rer;pordennos. 5 to 8 in} accordance with la,rv in the interest of^justice.

¶26

!.A.NO:1 OF 2025

¶27

Petition [Jrder^.iection 151 CPC^praying thatⁱⁿ the^{circurnstances statedin} the affidavit filed^rn : upport of the^{petition, the} High^{CoLrrtntay le pleased to} direct the responder t ro. 4 to extent the^{protectionin respectof t re petitioner's} land i.e., the alJrricu't.rfe lands to an exlent of Ac. 39.08 (lnts.,ⁱⁿ Sy.No.^{426 to} 456 situated at Tirr.rrralapore Village & GP, and Dondalapally '/illage & GP, Rajapur Mandal terst'ehile Balanagar Mandal),^{[Vlahaboobnagar Di ;trict, pending} disposal of the nrarn 'i,rit^petition.

¶28

Counsel for the Petilioner : SRI V.V.RAMANA

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR HOME

¶30

Counsel for the Res^pondent Nos.S to 8 : -

¶31

The Court made the following ORDER

¶32

¶33

THE I{ON'BLE SRT JUS'IICE K. LAKSHMAN

¶34

WRIT PETITION No.18672 of 2025

¶35

ORAL ORDER:

¶36

Heard Mr.V.V.Ramana, learned counsel for^the

¶37

petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respor.rdent Nos.2 to 4.

¶38

Petitioner is claiming that she is the absolute owner and posscssor of agricuiturc land admcasuring Acs.2 I .24^guntas in Sy.Nos.426l1, 4211A., 432, 4331A, 43ilAA, 434,^{435, 436,} 4311A,, 4371A,A, 4381A,A,12, 141 and 456lAll, situated at -l'irumalapore Vittage, Rajapur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. It is an ancestral propctty and shc acquired the same by inherilance of her husband. According to the petitioner, respondent No.8 has created agrecment of sale dated 22.12.2023 by forging her signatures. [{e has also created an oral agrccment in tl.re ycar 2017 with regard to the subject property. With the said allcgations, respondcnt No.S filed a suit in O.S.No.36 of 2024 on thc filc of the District Judge,

¶39

--l

¶40

2 KL. .] I I'] . ,167, ot2025

¶41

Mahabrrhna:tr', fbr specific performance ol tf e sale agreenrcl)1. l.&r order dated 20.12.2024 in I.A.\o..r.12 ol 2.023 ln O.S.lrr ..:tt of 2024, learned trial Court lrranted interirn injunctic,n itr lavour of respondent No.8 herein direc ir-rg tlie pctrtroncr trr: rr ir not to alienate the subject propcrt.. I,he said suit is pe ltr.lirrr arrd the said interim order is subsristirre.

¶42

i. [)c:u;a] itl' the record would also reveal thar on the cor.nplairrL li'iirlccl by respbndent No.6, police, Raj,tpr-rr police Station, ltav:, registered a case in Crime No.93 ,tf 2125 apainst the petitione,r' br the offence punishable under Sectior.r 420 ol lP(1. l'}etitir r,:. Itas filed a petition under Section j2g o1'the Bhararivrr l\rrtalik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (lbr. sh,t11 BNSS, 2023') tc clurr'; I thc procecdings in the said Crin-Le . 4. L'it,t,: ,rr.ler dated 02.05.2025 ln Crirnir.rirl l'etition No.64 lE^,-r,'.1 )2--s, this Court directing the petitioner htrein to appear trr-'lb't: thc Station House Officer, tr,.a-ia1tur. police Station, lrli.l. t L'ubnagar District, within 7 days liorn tlie :latc o1' receipt ()l .r copy of the said order, u,ltereupo t, the

¶43

¶44

KL, J w P No 18672 o12025

¶45

-.7

¶46

Investigating Officer shall^{issue notice on the petitioner under} Section 35(3) of BNSS,2023^{in Crime No.93of 2025 and take} up further proceedings as^{per the guidelinesof the Hon'ble} Apex Court in Arnesh Kumur^{v. State of BiharlThis Court} also dircctcd the petitioncr^{to cooperatewith the investigation'}

¶47

On the complaint lodged^{by the petitioner, the very same} l'olice have registered a^{case in Crime No. l2 | of 2025 against} respondent No.8 and otliers^{l'or the offences punishable under} Sections 441 , 421 ,^4OS ,^{qOS,41 1 and 420rearJ with Sectiorr 34} of IPC and the investigation^{is pending.}

¶48

lt is also the specific^{allegationof the petitioner herein} that respondent No.8^{forged her signatureswith the hetp of} respondent Nos.5 and 6, locat^{M[,A and his brother. TheY} have threatened the^{petitioner with dirc consequences and also} tried to dispossess^{her from the subject propefty.Therefore,} the petitioner^{is seeking a direction to respondcnt Nos.2 to 4 to}

¶49

'^{(20 r4) 8 scc 273}

¶50

4 KI- J 1 lj ) t86 'l ot 20)s

¶51

¶52

extend litr: ItoLection to the petitioner as well as thc subject

¶53

prope rt'\

¶54

I he ali,l.csaid lacts would reveal that thr.re rLre (lisputes between tlre p,rtitioner and respondent No.g. A:cordinrr to the petitionc' r'cs['|()lldcnt No.g forged her signatur,es and :r.catecr agrcenrcrrr crt sale daled 22.12.2023 and he has filcd the afbresaitl sLri irr. specilic performance of agreement r i.sale. Learned tr.ia ( ouft grantefl intcrim injunction dirc:cti tg the petitioner hr:r:rr not to plienatc fhe suit schedule properlv. .lhe said suit i; 1-,g 11 i11,,. the said interim order is in subslrlten )e and the investiurrt o I in the aforesaid two crimes is alsc, pe tding. TIierelbrc. rhc ttclrtioner can,t seek direction lo rr:spc udcnt Nos.2 to -i L:r ,-'rlcnd protcctior-r 1o her and to thc srrbject propert) il,)'r J\ r:rr', the Investigating officers in bot r trre crimes slurli c,)n(luct investigalion in accordarrce rvitlr the procedulc l.l ( r {)\ rr urrdcr thc law and also ir co,rrnl lnce with thc or.rle,r irrrcd 02.05.2025 in Criminal petition No.i4 Ig of 2025

¶55

¶56

)

¶57

Rt-.., W P No 18672 ot2025

I I

-.---7

If there^{is any threatto tlre lile ol the petitioner herein,} she has to specificatly narrate the^{same and submit a} representation to respondent^{No.4.On receipt of the same,} responder-rt No.4 shalt assess^{the threat perceptionof the} pctitioner and take action in^{accordancewith law. If} respondent Nos.5 to 8^{ifiterferes with possessionof the} petitioner over the sub.iect^{property,she has to approachthe} competent Civil Court,. and obtain^{injunction. Shc can also} obtain police profection if^{injunction order grantedto} respondent Nos.5 to 8^{is violated.'fhus, she has to availthe} said legal remedies. She^{can't seek direction to respondent} Nos.2 to 4 to^protect her^{property by fiting a writ petition} under Article 226 of^{Constitution of India straightaway.}

¶62

g. ln the light of aforesaid discussion, the lnvestigating Officers in Crirne^{Nos.93and 121 ol 2025 on the file of} Rajapur Police Station,^{is directed to conduct the investigation} strictly in accordance^{with the procedure laid down under law} and also following the^{directivesissued by this Courtvlde} ordcr datcd 02.05.2025 in^{Criminal Petition No.6418of 2025'}

6 \L..r

Libertf i;; :: lso granted to the petitioner to sr ltrnit a representa-ro I tLr respondent No.4 narratirrg thrcar to her life and seci<inr: )l.i)tection. On receipt of such reltr.ese ntation, respondrrnt \i r..1 shall assess 1he threat to the lif.e of the petition,:r r r-I .akc actiorr, in accordance with lau,. \/itl rcgard to protec 1i,r. r ., hcr properly, she has to avail th: rernedies under lar,,.

¶68

Wi'.i-r rl r' albresaid directions, tliis Wr it l)ctirion is disposed.

¶69

N4isc:rrll tr coLrs applications, il. any pendirg, shall star.rd closed.^-l lrc.t.c : lra ll be ncl order as to costs.

¶70

Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ,REGISTRAR DEPUT\ //rRUE CoPY// \ .

¶71

¶72

ION OFFICER II . sEcr ,'l

¶73

1 The Princioa Sio,)retary, Secretariat Buildings, 9tap of Telanga ra at Hyderabarl. llc r.e Department. W

¶74

The Direclor Gereral of Police, Telangana State, Lakdikapool,^tlyderabad- 500 004.

¶75

The Superinlerrrl':nt of Police, [t/ahaboobnagar District^Mahabc obnagar. 4. The Station ilc trs;e Officer, Rajapur Police Station, Mahabubnal:ar District 5. Two CCs to^t3l) FrOR HOIVE, High Court for the State of Telang^{ana at}

¶76

Hyderabad. [OL--]

¶77

6 One CC tc, SR v V.RAMANA, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies

SA PVL

C.C. TODAY

HIGH COUR

DATED:0210'712025

:,
et'
.t
$
oc \s,
!L I
t
d-
$"
9lt{

¶84

ORDER

¶85

WP.No.1867',2 ot 2025

¶86

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

¶87

WITHOUT CI]STS.

¶88

@'ri'
ffi

Smt. P.T.D. Lakshmi @a.T.D. Lakshmi Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. P.T.D. Lakshmi @a.T.D. Lakshmi Reddy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhulipalla v. a. S. Ravi Prasad Vs Andhra Pradesh Housing Board

Sri Chaitanya High School, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Zenith Prime Educational Society Vs The State of Telangana

V. Raju Nayak Vs State of Telangana

Ballem Jhansi Laxmi Vs The State of Telangana

Nalla Veeresh Goud Vs The State of Telangana