Disposed

Sri.Maddula Karthik Kumar Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC18 Sept 2025WP/27078/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought police protection for their agricultural land from a trespasser against whom a perpetual injunction decree existed, alleging police inaction on their complaint. The court disposed of the petition granting liberty to file a fresh application before respondent authorities, who were directed to act strictly in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to make a fresh application within one week; respondents directed to consider it and act in accordance with law.

Sri.Maddula Karthik Kumar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

//t

¶2

[³²⁵⁵ l

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

¶5

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶6

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶7

, PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 27078 9F 2025

¶10

Between:

¶11

Sri.tvladdula Karthik Kumar Reddy, S/o Late Sri.M.Laxmi Narsimha Reddy, Aged 40 years, Occ:Agriculture.

¶12

Sri.Maddula Kalyan (umaq Red{y, S/o Latg gri.M.Laxmi Narsimha Reddy, lggO^{38 years,-OccAgriculture, Both are R/o H.No.7-2, ThukkugudaVillage,} Maheshwaram [/andal, Ranga Reddy District also F/o H.No.17-1--fi3tlPt17{, lndraprastha Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

...PET|T!ONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

The state of relangana, Rep. by its Principal secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

The commissioner of Police, Rachakonda commissionerate, Vayupuri Colony, Neredmet, Hyderabad-500056.

¶17

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Maheshwaram Division and Zone, Near Bus Stop, Thukkuguda, Ranga Reddy District-500005.

¶18

The Station House Officer, Pahadishareef Police Station, Pahadishareef, Hyderabad-500005.

¶19

Mr.Karnati Srinivas Goud, S/o K.Narayana Goud, Aged about 57 years, occ.Agriculture, R/o MankhalVillage, Maheshwaiani Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent No.4 in providing police protection to the petitioners land adrneasuring Ac.00.09 Gts in Sy.No.1g8, situated at Mankal Revenue Village, under Thukkuguda Grarn Panchayat, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and bounded by North. Road leading through Thukkuguda to Basarguda South.Agricultural land in Survey No.40 East Agricultural land in survey No.317 of Anj:rierh Goud and

¶22

. West.Agricultiura! Iands in survey No.197, from the respondent No.S and his ,t^---- - henchmen {aving -acknowledging the complaint dated 11-08-2025 from the petitioners irnd also despite Perpetual injunction operating against the respondent l,lo.5 and others in OS.No.1359 of 2018 vide^judgment and Decree dated 3011112018^passed by lX Additional Senior Civi! Judge, L.B.Nagar, R.R. District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Art. 14,21, 300-A of Constitution of lndia, contrary to various^judgments of Honourable Apex Court as well as this Honourable Oourt and consequently direct the respondent No.4 to extend^police protection to the petitioners land admeasuring Ac.00.09 Gts in Sy.No.198, situated at Mankal^:Revenue Village, under Thukkuguda Gram:Panchayat, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and bounded by North. Road leading throrrgh Thukkuguda to Basarguda South.Agricultural land in Survey No.40 East Agricultural land in survey No.317 of Anjaiah Goud and West.Agricult:ural lands in survey No.197 from the respondent No.S and his henchmen, in the interest of^justice.

¶23

lA NO: t OF_,2025

¶24

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 No.4 to forthwith extend the^{police protection} to the petitioners lernd admeasuring Ac.00.09 Gts in Sy.No.198, situated at Mankal Revenue Village, under Thukkuguda Gram Panchayat, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Redd'y District and bounded by North. Road leading through Thukkuguda to Basarguda; South.Agricultural land in Survey No.40; East; Agricultural land in survey No.317 of Anjaiah Goud & West.Agricultural lands in survey No.197 from the respondernt No.S and his henchmen,^pursuant to^judgment and decree dated 30-11-2018^rdde O.S.No.1359 of 2018^passed by Hon'ble lX Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar during the pendency of the present Writ Petition in thr: interest of^justice.

¶25

Counsel for tlhe Petitioners: SRI C KUMAR

¶26

Counsel for llhe Respondents No 1 To 4: SRI G ANIKETH REDDY AGP FoR HoME

¶27

counsel for tlhe Respondent No 5:

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI IUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.27078 of 2025

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and G.Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for I-Iome appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. With their consent this writ petition is taken up for disposal.

¶33

This writ petition is filed seeking following prayer:-

¶34

"to declare the inactiott of tlrc respondent No.4 in proaiding police protection to the petitioners lantl ndtneoxtring Ac.N.A9 Gb in Sy No.1-98, situated at Manknl lleuenue Village, under Thukhtguda Gram Pancluyat, Mnlrcslnotrttm Mnndnl, Ranga Reddy District and bounded by North Rond landing through Thukkugudn to Basarguda, South: Agriuilturtl lmd in Suntell No.40, East: Agricultural land in sunev l'/r.r..117 of Anjnitth Goud and West: Agicultural lands in xtr:y Ntt.l9/ frctn tln respondent No.S and his lunchmen lm'tting nckntnululging tlrc t:onrylnint dated 11.08.2025 from^{the petitioners nndnlsttdt's1titt,Perpetunl injunction operating} against the responderzf A/o.5 nrul otircrs in OS No.1359 of 2018 oide judgment and Decree diltd 30.11.2018 passed by IX Additional Senior Ciail ludge, I-.8 Nngtr, Il.tl District, ns illegal, arbitrnry, aiolatiae of Art. 74, 27, 300-A o,l'Ctnstitution of lndia contrary to uaious judgments o.f florttntriltlt, Aptx Court as ruell as this Honourable Court and t'ottst,tlttt,nlly dirt:ct tlrc respondent No.4 to extend police protectiort ttt llrc pelitioners land admeasuring Ac.00. 09 Gts in Sy No.198, sitrtrttcd il Nlnnknl Rettenue Village, undEr Thulckuguda Grnm Ptrtcltnlil, Nlalrcslnpnrnm Mnndal, Rnnga Reddy District and [tottrttled lr!/ Norlh: Ilond leading through Thul*uguda to Bnsnrgrult, -(irrrflr: Agriailtural land in Suntey No.40, East: Agrir:ullurnL htrtl itt iltr((V No.377 of Anjaiah Goud andWest: Agriculturtil hnds itt ttn't't1 No.197 ftoru the respondent No.S and ltis hencluut:rt."

¶35

Brief facts stated in this n.rit pctiti()n are that petitioners claims that

¶36

their father had purchasec{ lancl .rtlnreasuriug to an extent of Ac.00.09 Gts in Sy.No.198, situated at Mankal Revenue Vi[[age, under Thukkuguda Gram Panchayat, Maheshwaram Mauclal, Rarrga Redcly District, through registered

¶37

¶38

sale deed bearing document No.951 of 2013 dated 27.02.2013. Later, on 17.07.2018, respondent No.S trespassed the subject land and tried to dispossess the petiticners' father. Hence, petitioners' father filed suit for perpetual injunction i.e., O.S.No.1359 of 2018 and the learned IX Additional Senior Civil Judge,^{R.I{.DistrictL.B.Nagar,aide orderdated30.11.2018,} granted^perpetual injunction and restrained respondent No.5 and their henchrnen irorn entering into the subject land. It is further submitted the petitioners' father died on 16.01.2024 and petitioners being the legal heir have succcc.c{ecl to the subiect property and were in peaceful possession of the sut-riect propert'v,. The case of the petitic,ners is that inspite of the order dated 30.11.201tt in O.S.No.1359 of 2018, respcndent No.S and his henchrnen, in the seconcl r.r,eck of |uly, 2025 and first week of August, 2025, criminally trespassec{ into the subiect land and tried to level the land with the help of JCB. [{encc, thc Fretitioners on 17.08.2025 sent a complaint through registerecl post anr{ rcrlLrcstcd resprondgnl authoritier; to provide police protection to the Frct'itioncr aucl takc action against rtspondent No.S. However, till c{ate rcsproncient authoritie.s had neither p::ovided police protection nor had initiatccl cu'l, acticlr-r against rcsponder.t No.5. Aggrieved by the same, this writ pctiti()rl is filed.

¶39

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Ilonrc appearing for respondents Nos.L to 4 placed on record instructiorrs isstrccl Lr1' Sub lnspector of Police, Pahadishreef Police Station, Rachakoncla Commissioncrate, r.r,hcrein it is submitted that the respondentNo.4 did not receir-e "rn_r's1-rgf ific order frorn any cotnpetent Court to provide police protection to the petitioncr. It is iurther stated

that on petitioners'complaint dated 11.08.2025, GD entry was made and during the course of enquiry, it was revealed that the matter pertains to civil in nature, hence, the petitioners were suggested to approach competeht civil Court for redressal of their grievance. Thereafter, petitioners' complaint dated 11,.ffi.2025 was closed as "Civil in Nature" and the same was intimated to the petitioners through notice dated 09.09.2025.

¶44

Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court to the orders passed by the Flon'ble Supreme Court in P.R.Murlidharan and others Vs. Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and othersl relevant paragraph is extracted hereuncier:-

¶45

"A urrit fur "police protection" so-cilled, luts only a limited scope, as, urlun tlu court is approaclrcd for protectiott oJ' rights declared by a ilecree or by an order passed by a ciuil court. It cannot be extended to cases uthere rights hatre not been dcterntined either fnally by the cioil aurt or, at least at an interlocutortl stnge in an unambiguous manner, and then too in fitrtltermrce of tiuteirec or order."

¶46

Relying on the above, learned counscl for the petitioners pray this Court to grant liberty to the petitioncrs to make tresh application before the respondent authorities and pray this Court to rlirect the respondent authorities to consider the same and pass orders.

¶47

7- Recording the submission made Lrv the learned counsel appearing on either side and in terms of order passccl bv thc l{on'ble Supreme Court in P.R.Murlidharan and others Vs. Swanli Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others (cited supra), this writ petition is rlisposed of granting liberty to petitioners to make a fresh application Lrcfore respclndent authorities, within a

¶48

, I

¶49

' IZOOO;4^{SupremeCourtCases 501}

¶50

¶51

Period^{of one (01) week from the date} of receipt of copy of this order and on such representation, the respondent authorities are directed to take further action strictly in erccordance with law.

¶52