Disposed¶39

Gangapuram Narsamma v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Sept 2025WP/27761/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana HC writ petition (Art. 226) seeking mandamus for non-registration of complaint dated 28.08.2025 alleging encroachment, tractor-ploughing, crop damage and assault on allotted agricultural land; police made GD entry, sought Tahsildar survey, closed complaint as civil in nature (pending civil dispute, 40-year possession); disposed at admission stage directing due procedure before any action on property; petitioner free to seek other remedies; no cases cited; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Respondent authorities directed to follow due procedure as contemplated under law before initiating any action on the petitioner's property; petitioner at liberty to seek appropriate remedy available under law if dissatisfied with the enquiry; miscellaneous applications, if any, closed; no order as to costs. ¶39

Gangapuram Narsamma Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the inaction of respondent No.3 (SHO, Marpalli Police Station) in not registering the petitioner's complaint dated 28.08.2025 is bad in law, arbitrary, illegal and high-handed, and whether the respondent should be directed to register the complaint and take action as per law.

¶29

Court's answer

Recording the submissions of learned counsel on either side, the Court disposed of the writ petition (taken up at the admission stage with consent) directing the respondent authorities to follow the due procedure as contemplated under law before initiating any action on the petitioner's property, and observed that the petitioner may seek appropriate remedy as available under law if dissatisfied with the enquiry.

¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (Special Original Jurisdiction), W.P. No. 27761 of 2025, disposed 15.09.2025 (N.V. Shravan Kumar, J.). Petitioner, allottee of land under the scheduled caste welfare scheme (Sy.No.405, Buchanpalli Village, Marpalli Mandal), sought a mandamus declaring bad in law the failure of Marpalli Police (respondent No.3) to register her complaint dated 28.08.2025 alleging that Begari Ravinder and others trespassed, ploughed her land, destroyed crops and assaulted her family on 24.08.2025. Police instructions showed a GD entry, a 12.09.2025 request to the Tahsildar for survey/demarcation, and closure of the complaint as 'civil in nature' on 14.09.2025 given a pending civil dispute and the rival claimants' possession for the past 40 years; Begari Ravinder was not impleaded. Taking the petition up at the admission stage with counsel's consent, the Court directed the respondent authorities to follow due procedure as contemplated under law before initiating any action on the petitioner's property, leaving her free to seek appropriate remedies if dissatisfied; miscellaneous applications closed; no costs.

[^32s5 ]

tN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY FIVE}

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVANKUMAR}

¶8

WRIT NO:27761 oF 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gangapuram Narsamma,^w{9 Qal'-gapyr3T^Subhash, 39eq .42^years'occ' HouiehotO r/o Paidigummal,^{Kohir Mandal, Sangareddy District}

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of^{Telangana,Rep., by its its Director General of Police,} Lakadikapul Hyderabad^{TelanangaS.tate}

¶14

ihe SuperintenOent^{of Police,Vikarabad District at Vikarabad}

¶15

ff'e Stition^{Uouse officer, Marpalli PoliceStation Vikarabad District}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^{praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe} pleasdd to issue a writ, order^{or direction more particularlyone in the natureof} writ of Mandamus declaring^{the inaction on the part of the respondentno. 3 in} not registering the complaint^{of the petitioner dated 251812025as bad in law,} arbitrary, illegal and^{high handed one and consequently direct tl're respondentno.} 4 to register the same^{and take action as per law.}

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir:oumstances^stated in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High court rpay be pleasedto} direct the responderrt^{no. 4 to register the complaintdated 28t8t2}25 of the} petitioner forthwith and take action^{as per law expeditiously, pending disposalof} WP.

¶20

COUNSEI fOr thE^{PEtitiONET:SRI. SANJEEV REDDY GILLELA} Counsel for the Respondents:^{AGP FOR HOME} The Court made the following:^ORDER

i. i ir i:

,_:{

THE TIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICT N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION 0.27761 of 2o.25,

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents. With their consent, this writ petition is being taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶27

This writ petition has been filed seeking the foilowing

¶28

prayer:-

¶29

"declaing the ina.ction on the pqrt of the respondent No.3 tn not registering the complaint of the petitioner dated 28/ 08/ 2O2S as bad in law arbitrary illegal and high handed one and consequentty direct the respondent No.4 to register the same and ta.ke q"ctiott as-per lq.w."

¶30

B:ief facts as stated in this writ petition are that petitioner was allotted with land by Government under scheduled caste welfare Scheme in the year 2006 admeasuring Ac.l2-oo ;3ts., in sy.No.405 of Buchanpalli Vilage, Marpalli Mandal. T.:re said land was now divided into 4 equar shares to the petitioner herself and two sons and one daughter-in-law. The petitioner end others were doing agriculture activities in the said land by raisin g Maize, Toor dal, sorguam' "rop". It is submitted that they are all issued. rvith inclir,'idual passbooks in respect of their lands. It is further submitted that on 24.08.2o2s in the

¶31

¶32

¶33

night hours one Begari Ravinder and others entered into petitioner's land and ploughed their lands with tractor and damaged all crops and also tried to encroach their crops. Even earlier when the sanile incident took place, petitioner lociged complaint before Marpalli Police Station, but the Police did not take any action since the above said persons given undertaking that they will not enter into petitioner's lands. However, ofl 24.08.2025 again they repeated the same and also attacked the sons of petitioner and also her daughter-in-law. The respondent Police are not registering the complaint and are advising the petitioner to approach competent civil Court. Questioning the .:_, sarne, the present writ petition is filcd.

¶34

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents placed a copy of instructions issued by Sub-Inspector of Police, Marpalli Police Station, wherein it is stated that petitioner sent a representation through Post to respondent No.3 narrating the above stated facts. Basing on the said representation, respondent No.3 made a GD Entry. During the course of enquiry, respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated L2.O9.2O25 to the Tahsildar, Marpally Mandal, Vikarabad District for conducting survey for the boundar5r and demarcation in respect of the subject land. As per the enquiry, it is revealed that Mr.Begari Ravinder and others were in possession of the

("'

land from past 40 years and they are ploughing the said land and that there is a civil dispute pending between petitioner and said Begari Ravind.er. After completion of enquiry, the respondenl. Police advised the petitioner to approach competent court and closed the said complaint as civil in nature on 14.o9.2o2[i and the same was informed to the petitioner through Petition IV.anagement systern. It is rurtrrer submitted that petitioner has not made the said Begari Ravinder as party responden: to the present writ petition. Therefore, the allegation of petitionr:r that respondent No.3 has not taken any action on the said ccmplaint is false and baseless.

¶39

R:cording the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on either side, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities to follow due procedure as contemplated under law before initiating any action on petitioner'rr property. Petitioner may also seek appropriate remedy as available under law, if dissatisfied with the enquiry.

¶40

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shalt stand

¶41

closed. Nr> order as to costs.

¶42

SD/.P.PONNA^KRISHNA REGISTRAR

/TRUE COPY//

N OFFICER

To,

The Director^{General of Police, Lakadikap-u.t} l-ly{er.qQad^{Telananga State} )'. Tii; a ; G^{iinte nt e ni'oiPol ic", Vi karabad' Districtat .Vikarabad} 5. Tii; aAion Ho;;;;tricei,^{rr,tap-qlli PoliceStation,Vikarab-ad District} 4. oni ii to sni-5nr.r.tE-rv^{ngoovGILLEHT Advocate t9?uct} d. iil ita;io -e c Fon n-[n71E ,High court for the State of Telangana at

¶47

-..-T'rry { ,/

¶48

Two CD Copies

BM TKS

^J1

HIGH COURT

\ \

DATED:1510912025

I HE SIA
O.J 2 I JAN 2026
<'i
* -,:.

¶56

ORDER

¶57

WP.No.2,,7761 of 2025

¶58

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOT'T COSTS

¶59

,$ ,r,*

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Non-registration of the petitioner's complaint dated 28.08.2025 by respondent No.3; upon enquiry the police advised the petitioner to approach a competent court and closed the complaint as 'civil in nature' on 14.09.2025, informing her through the Petition Management System.¶38
Marpalli Police Station (respondent No.3) · 14.09.2025
Prior proceeding
Petitioner allotted land by Government under scheduled caste welfare scheme in 2006 (Sy.No.405, Buchanpalli Village, Marpalli Mandal; extent garbled in OCR), later divided into four equal shares among petitioner, her two sons and daughter-in-law, with individual passbooks issued; agriculture (Maize, Toor dal, sorghum) carried on.¶30
Prior proceeding
An earlier identical incident had occurred; petitioner lodged a complaint before Marpalli Police Station but the police took no action as the said persons gave an undertaking not to enter petitioner's lands.¶33
Prior proceeding
On 24.08.2025 night hours, Begari Ravinder and others entered petitioner's land, ploughed it with a tractor, damaged all crops and tried to encroach; the same paragraph further alleges they repeated the incident and attacked petitioner's sons and daughter-in-law.¶33
Prior proceeding
Petitioner sent a representation through post to respondent No.3 narrating the incidents; a GD entry was made; during enquiry respondent No.3 addressed a letter dated 12.09.2025 to the Tahsildar, Marpally Mandal, for survey, boundary demarcation of the subject land.¶34
Prior proceeding
Enquiry revealed Begari Ravinder and others were in possession of the land from the past 40 years and ploughing it, and a civil dispute was pending between petitioner and Begari Ravinder; petitioner had not made Begari Ravinder a party respondent to the writ petition.¶38
Prior proceeding
After completion of enquiry the complaint was closed as civil in nature on 14.09.2025 and petitioner was informed through the Petition Management System (this closure is the impugned police action).¶38

Gangapuram Narsamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangapuram Narsamma v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Kishore Kumar Ganji Vs The State of Telangana

Kadamanchi Naveena Vs The State of Telangana

Desireddi Jyothi, Vs The State of Telangana

Nukarapu Venkateshwarlu, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. R.Sreelatha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

S.v.Ranga Rao Vs The State of Telangana