Battu Krishna, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

Battu Krishna, Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No. 2 (Station House Officer, Shamirpet Police Station) should be directed, by writ of mandamus, to take necessary action to implement the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge Court orders in I.A.No. 126 of 2016 to stop respondent Nos. 4 to 7 illegally trespassing into the property. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

As the suit filed by the petitioner ended by settlement and the crime registered at his instance ended with a final report, the court held that nothing further remains in this matter for deliberation.

Key takeaways

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous and there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶¶43
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P. No. 24932 of 2018 (Battu Krishna v. The State of Telangana & others) — High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad, decided 19-11-2025 by Justice N. Tukaramji (single judge). Petition under Article 226 sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 (Station House Officer, Shamirpet Police Station, Cyberabad Police) to implement the trial-court orders in I.A.No. 126 of 2016 in O.S.No. 38 of 2016 (II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal) to stop respondent Nos. 4 to 7 illegally trespassing into the property; an accompanying Section 151 CPC petition sought direction to respondents 4–7 to stop construction pending disposal. During pendency, the petitioner's suit ended by settlement with defendant No. 2 therein and was disposed of, and Crime No. 74 of 2018, registered at his instance, was closed by a final report (grievance found 'civil in nature') filed before the VI Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medchal on 30-04-2018. Holding that nothing further remained for deliberation, the court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, closed miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, and made no order as to costs.

13217 |

j.t,

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF.TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD} (Special Original.,Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION NO: 24932 OF²⁰¹⁸

Between:

Battu Krishna, S/o. Veera Mallaiah, Aged 32 years, Occ. Agriculture,^{R/o. Laxmapur} village, Shamirpet Mandal, Medchal District.

...PETITIONER

AND

1 . The State of Telangana,^{Rep.byits Principal Secretary Home Department,} Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

The Station House Officer,^{ShamirpetPoliceStation, CyberabadPolice.}

Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamirpet^{Mandal,Telangana.}

Manga Balnarsinha @^{Balnarsiah, Aged 32 yeqrq,} 999.flnt'.ulture^H.No.2- 1 27,-Laxmapu r Vi^I lagE,^S ham^{i rpet Mandal,Med chal District.}

Manga Ramulu, S/o. Manga^{Narsaiah,Aged 60 yeqrs,} -Occ,^{Agriculture, H.No.} 2-12i, Laxmapur Village, Shamirpet^{[Vlandal, MedchalDistrict.}

Manga Sathaiah, S/o.^{MangaNarsaiah,Rggq 5Q ye9p,.Qcc.'} $g1igulture, H.Noi. 2-127, Laxmapur Vill-age,^{Shamirpet Mandal, MedchalDistrict.}

7 . Manga Darshan, S/o.^{MangaNarsaiah,Rgq{ S5,Years,.Qcc.} lg1igulture, H.Noi. 2-127, Laxmapur Vill-age,^{Shamirpet Mandal, MedchalDistrict.}

...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court maybe} pleased to issue an Order, Orders Direction more^{particularlyone in the nature of} Writ of Mandamus Directing the^{RespondentNo.2to take necessaryactionto} lmplement the Honble Principle Junior^{Civil Judge Court Ordersin 1.A.No.126 of} 2016 to stop the Respondent No.^{4 to 7 in illegally trespassinginto the property.}

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

Petition ttnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filerd in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Direct Respondent No.4 to 7 to stop the construction in the above said property pending dispos;rl of the writ petition.

counsel for the Petitioner : sRl RACHAKoNDA RAMAKRTSHNA CNUI Ptr66€t\r\€D) Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : Gp FOR HOME

Counsel for the Respondents No.4to7 :

The Court made the following: ORDER

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI OF

ORDER:

i...,,.-... ......,.-,.,:..,..._..

This Writ Petition is filed under Article^{226 of Constitti.tion} of India seeking the following relief/s:-

"...to issue a writ, order or direction^{moreparticularly in} the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing^{respondentNo.2} to take necessary action to implement^{the Hon'ble Principal} Junior Civil Judge Court Orders in^{I.A.No.126 of 2OL6 to} stop respondent Nos.4 to 7 in illegally^{trespassinginto the} property and pass..."

None appeared on behalf of the^petitioner

Heard Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant^{GovernmentPleader} for Home appearing for respondent^{Nos.l and 2 and Mr. M-V. Raj} Kumar Gabriel, learned counsel appearing^{for respondent Nos.4,} 5 ana Z.

Learned Assistant Government^{Pleader for Home submits} that basing on the representation^{of the petitioner herein, Crime} No.74 of 2018 was registered.^{However,after investigation, it is} found that the contentions of^{the petitioner are of 'civil in nature'.} The same was placed by filing^{final reportbefore the VI Additional} Judicial Magistrate of First^{class, Medchal, on 3o.o4.2o18.} the contention of the petitioner^{does not survive.}

rib +r

: Ii I, I

2

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4, 5 and T submits that the prayer of the petitioner is for implementation of the stafit.; qpo order granted by the trial Court in I.A.No. 126 of 2016 in o.S.No. 38 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, however, pending this writ petition, the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit, has not pressed the suit and settled the matter with the defendant No. 2 therein. As he was not served with notice in suit itself, has been disposed of. Nothing further remains in this matter for implementation. Hence, p:iayed for dismissal of this writ petition.

I have perused the material available on record

Thr: grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 was not takirrg action in implementing the order of civil court in I.A.No.1!16 of 2016 against the unofficial respondents. The developnrents reported by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and the learned counsel appearing for respond.r:nt Nos. 4, 5 and 7 are evidencing that the suit, which was frle,l by the petitioner and the crime registered at his instance, both are ended by a settlement and a hnal report ---rQspectively. That being the factual position, this court is of the

r*

J

considered view that nothing further remains in this matter^for deliberation

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed^{as infructuous.} There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand^closed

Sd/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY REG

//TRUE COPY//

OFFIGER

To,

One CC to SRI RACHAKONDA RAMAKRISHNA,

IoPUCI

Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State^{of Telangana.} [OUT]

Twp CD Copies.

BSI(DAN : \qr

I

II

t

t

HIGH COURT

DATED:1911112025

1HE S
0 i :,il\R 7',1:li
*
4
T

WP.No.24932 of 2018

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

\o d(eb
Xs'

I II I