Disposed

Smt.G.Indiramma, Hyd and 11 Others v. Prl Secy, Home Dept, Hyd and 6 Others

Telangana HC4 Sept 2025WP/38478/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought directions against police interference with their possession of about 11.23 acres in Gaganpahad Village amid pending civil disputes with private respondents. Police stated they never interfered in the civil dispute or possession. Recording that stand and earlier interim orders, the court disposed of the petition without further orders or costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt.G.Indiramma, Hyd and 11 Others Vs Prl Secy, Home… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

! !, I ,r i I

,/A

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

¶5

[³⁴⁸⁶ I

¶6

THURSDAY,THE FOURTH^{DAY OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FIVE .}

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNAREDDY Z}

¶9

wRlr PETITION NO:^{38478 0F 2b15} -

¶10

Between:

¶11

Smt. G. lndiramma,W/o^{Sri Harish Chander, Aged about 71 years,R/o. Flat} No.103, Subhodaya^{Enclave, BaghAmberpet, Hyderabad'}

¶12

Smt. N.Sunitha, Wo.^{Sri N Vinod Kumar Goud,D/o. Sri. G.Harish Chander,} - R/o. 11, Environ Enclave,^{Kukatpally,Hyderabad'}

¶13

G.Harish Chander,^{S/o. Late Babaiah, R/o.FlatNo.103, Subhodaya Enclave,} - Bagh Amberpet,^HYderabad.

¶14

Smt.^p.Vilaya Lakshmi,^{W/o.Sri P.RavinderGoud, D/o. Sri G.Harish Chander,} - R/o. 403, Doctor Residency,^{Barkatpura, Hyderabad'}

¶15

G.Mrithyunjay, S/o.^{Sri Harish Chander,R/o.205,. Bhandari Residency,} - Kundanbagh, HYderabad.

¶16

G.Vijay Goud, S/o.^{Late Jai Shanker Goud, R/o. Chandrayanagutta'} - ' Hyderabad.

¶17

G.Vidyapati, S/o^{Late Jai Shankar Goud, R/o. Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad' -}

¶18

g. G.Santosh Goud, S/o. Late Jai Shankar Goud, FUo.^{Chandrayanagutta,} -. Hyderabad.

¶19

G.Ravinder Goud,^{S/o. Late Jai ShankarGoud, Fi/o. Chandrayanagutta,} Hyderabad.

¶20

10.Smt. D.Manjuvani,^{Wo. Sri D.Kishore, D/o. Late Jai ShankarGoud,Rl/o'} H.No.2-2-1 1O7lB,^{TilakNagar,Nallakunta, Hyderabad'}

¶21

ll.Smt.Sandhya Vani,^{D/o. Late Jai shankar Goud,R/o. Chandrayanagultar,.} Hyderabad.

¶22

12.Smt. B.Swathi, w/o.^{sri B.Laxman Goud, D/o. Late Jai shankar Goud, R/o.1--} 2-234t24, SBH Colony,^{Domalguda, Hyderabad'}

¶23

r :^_rli::L?:i? ..^. i-'l:ii;i.llri!

¶24

.PETITIONERS

¶25

AND

¶26

1, The, State of relangana, Home Department, Rep. by its principal secretary, Sec;retariat, Hyderabad.'

¶27

1. The, Director General of Police, State of relanqana. Hyderabad.

¶28

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Hyd6rabad.' 4. The,^{Deputy commissioner of-Police, shdmshabad, Ranga Reddy} District, Tel;rngana.

¶29

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District, Tel:rngana.

¶30

The lnspector of Police, Shamshabad police Station, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

¶31

InS^{Sub-lnspector,shamshabadporice Station, Ranga} Reddy District, Telangana

¶32

R8. Ashrvin^{Kumar Agarwal} S/o^{Raj Kumar agarwal} Age<l46 years, Occ business t{o I-I. No. 3-6-305/82, Avanthina Ear, Bash eerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶33

R9. Smt. Kamala Bai W/o Late Shanker Lal Agerl T2yeaxs,It/o Sikh Village SM [i. Ap artmenfs, S-egunderabad

¶34

RL0. Smt. Pushpa Bai,W/o Shiv Charan Agr:d 66years,I{,/o Road No.1 Baniara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶35

RL1. Smt Uma Bai, W/o Ramesh Chand Ag,:d 63 years,'R/o Avanthinagar, Bas'heerbagtu Hyderabad"

¶36

R12. Smt Sharda Bai,W/o Lalit Kumar, Aged 62years, r/o Basheerbagh, Opp Skyline Thiak4 Hyderabad.

¶37

RL3. Smt. Shobha Bai,'Wfo Giri Raj Charan, Aged 58 years, I{,/o Road No.L, Ba:riara hills, Hyderabad.

¶38

R14. Smt. Lalitha Bai,W/o Kailas Charan Aged 53 years, Road No. L1, Baniara hills, Hyderabad.

¶39

i I I I I lI I

¶40

R15. Saniay Kumar, s/o Hans Raj, Aged 54 years, Occ business, I{o H.No.3-6-305/82,

¶41

Avanthinagar, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶42

RL6. Anrit Kumar Agarwal, S/o Hari Ram Agarwal, Aged 35 years, Occ Business, t{o 3-6-305/80, Avanthi Nagar, Ba ;heebagh, Hyderabad.

¶43

I,tI

¶44

¶45

Respondents Nos.8 to 16 are impleaded as Per C.O. dt.04.09.2025 in IA. No. 2/2015

I I l

...RESPONDENTS

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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to direct the respondents to act in accordance with law and not to interfere with the^{peaceful possession} and enjoyment of the petitioners of the property admeasuring 11.23 acres in Sy.No.222 of Gaganpahad Village, Ranga Reddy District

¶50

Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. P. NAMRATHA REP SRI. VEDULA SRINIVAS, SENIOR COUNSEL

¶51

Counsel for the-Respondent.tlos. 1to7: SRI SRIDHAR BHUVANAGIRI, AGP FOR HOME

¶52

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 8to16: SRI J. U. M. V. PRASAD

¶53

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶54

¶55

HON()URABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶56

WRIT PETITION No.38478 of 2O15

¶57

ORDI:R

¶58

Heard Ms. P. Namratha, Iearned counsei representing Sri V,:dula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel on record for the petitioners ancl Sri Sridhar Bhuvanagiri, learned Assistant Government Pleader tbr Home.

¶59

The present Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondents to act in accordance wtth law and not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the propert5r admeesuring Ac.11.23 guntas in Sy"No222 of Gaganpahad Village, Ranga Recidy District.

¶60

This Court by order d.ated. 70.L2.2O15 passed the

¶61

following interim clirection:

¶62

'The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sharnshabad Diuisiona, Cgberabari Corrrmissionerate, furnished^{writteninstructionsdai.ed-O7.12.20i5 to the} office of tLe learned Gouernrrtent Pleader for Home, wherein he stated thnt the police neuer interfered with the construction of anA compound wall or in the issue of possesslorL ouer the subject propertg.

¶63

\ \

¶64

The stand is takert on recorri.

¶65

As i/ is stated that a ciuil litigation is pbnding betuteen the petitioners and third parties, this Court does not deetn it appropriate to uenture ang opinion as to the factual aspects. It utould suffice at this stage to record the stand of the police autharities that theg are

¶66

¶67

¶68

VRKIT, J rvp_38478 20t5

¶69

not interfering eitLter in the ci.uil dispute or with the factual^{aspectstherea_f.} Needless to state, in th,e euent of ang iau; a.nd. ord.ei'siiuaticn or i._f'an-g ccgnizable offence is comrnitted ar is o-bou.t to be committed., the poltce euthonties i.uould be bound to take necessary action in acccrciance with lau: o-nd the due procedure prescribed. there.fcr.'

¶70

4- Tile respondent iio.6 liied a counter sta.ting that civil disputes are pending between the petitioner and unofficial respoirdents llnrl rhat the Police lrevei- intert'ered into the civil ciisputes"

¶71

.5. Recortiing the stateir-rent made by the police and in view of the above interim orders dated la.L2-2or5, this court is of the cpinion that no fnrther orders are required to be passed.

¶72

e. Accordingi5r, ihe W*r Perrtion is disposed of in terms of 't-he interira orciers passed on lo. i2.2oLS. There shalr be no order as to costs.

¶73

As a- sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶74

shall stand ciosed.

¶75

¶76

SD/.AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6

/TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1^{The Principal Secret?ryrllome Department, Secretariat, T.S.,Hyderabad.} 2. The Director General_o_f Police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶81

The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Hyd6rabid.'

¶82

The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. i

¶83

Pro

¶84

¶85

The Ai;sistant^{Commissionerof Police, Shamshabad,Ranga Reddy District,} Telangana . ,,

¶86

fne tispector of^{Police, Shamshabad Police Station, Ranga Reddy} . ,,^District, - Telangana.

¶87

Til $ub-lnspector,^{Shamshabad Police Station, Ranga ReddyDistrict,} Telangana

¶88

One dl to SRI^{VEDULA SRINIVAS, Advocate} [oPUC]

¶89

One C,l to SRI^{J.U. tM. V. PRASAD, Advocate} IOPUC]

¶90

iO. two C,ls to GP^{FOR HOME} ,High^{Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hydererbad [OUT]

¶91

11.Two C) Copies

BIU BS

o{R

\ II

i 'l

: I III I tII i I a it

i n

HIGH CoURT

DATED:04/0912A25

\ \

ORDER

r
t-
<br>;'
3 agJmt?o?B I I
* *

¶103

WP.No.ii8478 of 2015

¶104

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOLIT COSTS

¶105

L\IL ,
@
,d.'tW

Smt.G.Indiramma, Hyd and 11 Others v. Prl Secy, Home Dept, Hyd and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt.G.Indiramma, Hyd and 11 Others v. Prl Secy, Home Dept, Hyd and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Kalyan Ram Vs State of Telangana

Chinthalatadem Kishan Vs The State of Telangana

Beeram Indira Reddy Vs The Commissioner of police

Husna Begum Vs The State of Telangana

Muddragada Kanakaiah Vs The State of Telangana

M/s M.R. Logistics Vs The State of Telangana