Disposed

M.Vijaya Reddy v. The State of Telangana rep by its Prl. Secretary

Telangana HC23 Sept 2025WP/6377/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged police interference with his possession of agricultural land at Muthvalliguda village in a civil matter. The court directed respondents 2 to 5 to refrain from interfering with possession, enjoyment and civil disputes except in strict accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Nos.2 to 5 directed not to interfere with petitioner's possession/enjoyment or dispute civil matters except strictly per law; no costs.

M.Vijaya Reddy Vs The State of Telangana rep by… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t3217 I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original J urisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 6377 OF 2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

M.Vijaya Reddy, S/o Kista Reddy, aged about 60 years, Rb.H.No.9-83/1, Rajob Village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Medak District.

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep by its Prl. Secretary, Horne Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda, Te{angana State.

¶14

The Deputy Comrnissioner of Police, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶15

The Assistant Cornmissioner of Police, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, Telangan State.

¶16

The Station House Officer, Medipally Police Station, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶17

.....RESPONDENTS

¶18

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, order or direction rnore particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 in interfering in Civil rnatters and restraining the petitioner from enjoying the land corcred by S.M.1/EE admeasuring an extent of Ac.5-22 gts situated at Muthvalliguda village, Ghatkesar Mandal as illegal, arbitrary and without any authority and consequerfily direct the respondents 2 to 5 not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of ttrc pe{itioner in respect of land in S.No.1/EE admeasurlng an extent of Ac.5-22 gts situated at Muthvalliguda village, Ghatkesar Mandal.

¶19

3 n ;t P ?I'rI

¶20

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 respondents 2 to 5 not to interfere with^possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of land in S.No. I /EE admeasuring an extent of Ac.5-22 gts situated at Muthvalliguda village, Ghatkesar Mandal,^pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶21

Gounsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.GANGA RAMI REDDY tNor^PRESENT)

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents : SR! R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

¶24

¶25

THE^{HONOURABLESRI JTISTICEN.TTII(ARAIT'IJI}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Writ^{Petition isfrled under Article 226 of}

¶28

Constihrtionoflndiaseekingthefollowingrelief/s:-

¶29

....issue a writ, order or direction^{more particularlyone in the nafure} t"=po"aents^{2 to 5 in} of Writ^{of Mandamus, declaringtt'g} "91i3'" "iitt" interferirAg^{in Civil matters and rest'rainitg it't petitioner from enjoying} the land^{covereduy'i'Nt'riBgadmeasu-ringan extentof Ac'5-22 gts} sihrated^{atrrartn"iiigial-'""g"'..ctttif"""tMandat as illesd'} consequently^{direct the} arbitrary^{and wittro-ui';;;} ""th;tt1-""a respondents^{2 to s'"litl- intetrertitt'p""=t1-i-"njoymentof} oi f"t'a^{in S'No' t /'gg admeasuringan extent of} tJle t*.s_22gts^{petition", i,t situatefi:;} '""p""t^{ilffi;"il;d";ir"c* GhatkesarManddand} pass..."

¶30

None^{appearedfor the petitioner'}

¶31

Heard^{Mr'R'Laxmikanth Reddy' learnedAssistant} GorrernmentPleaderforHomeappearingforrespondent Nos.1 to^5.

¶32

4.I,earnedAssistantGovernmentPleadersubmitsthat the respondent-Police^{authorities never interfered with the} civil matters^{as contended by the petitioner is witltout}

¶33

substance,^{and' accordingly prayed for dismissal'}

¶34

5 I have perused^{the materials on record'}

¶35

¶36

Having regard to the assertive statement of, the petitioner that the respondent-Police authorities are interfering with the possession a'd enjoyment over the petition mentioned propert5r and interfering urith tJ:e civil disputes and having regard to tJre limitations of the police in civil matters, respondent Nos .2 to 5 are directed to refrain from interfering with t,,e possession and enjoSrment and disputing civ, matters of the petitioner, save and except in strict accordance urith law.

¶37

7 ' with this direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

Miseellaneous petitions, pending if any, shatl stand closed.

¶39

¶40

SD/- A.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// lv./n-SECTION OFFTCER

¶41

The Principal s.ecretary,.Horne Department, secretariat Buirdings, State of ^^{Tetanganaat Hyderabib} 2' The commissioher.of.porice,-Rachakonda, Terangana State. 3. The Deputv commissionei ot c"tice, rr,rrrtribiril niiga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶42

The Assistant commissioner of police, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

¶43

The Station House Officer, Medipally Police Station,^{RangaReddy District,} Telangana State.

¶44

Til iCi^{to Cp FOR HOME, High Court for the Stateof Telangana at} Hvderabad. IOUTI

¶45

Hvderabad. IOUTI

¶46

1. ij'":, rc6^{dnip.'cnNcARAMI REDDY' Advocate[oPUc]}

¶47

B. Two^{CD CoPies}

¶48

SA W

()

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310912025

1 HE SIa
(.
O
(J ?
0 7 JA}l 2026

¶53

ORDER

¶54

WP.No.6377 of 2017

¶55

DISPOSING^{OF THE W.P}

¶56

WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶57

\
\1/

M.Vijaya Reddy v. The State of Telangana rep by its Prl. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Vijaya Reddy v. The State of Telangana rep by its Prl. Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gandari Devendrachary, Vs The State of Telangana

Md.Jaffar Hyd Vs Prl Secy Home Dept Hyd and 2 Others

Sanivarapu Gangadhar Reddy, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Rekha Bai, Vs The State of Telangana, Home Department

Boda Sujatha Vs The Station House Officer, Komararam police Station

D.Jyothi Kumar Vs The State of Telangana rep by its Principal Secretary