Disposed

Kankanala Aruna v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Feb 2026WP/21589/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner sought directions for police protection of property pursuant to a civil decree. The court instructed the petitioner to submit a formal application to the police, mandating consideration in light of the pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to submit an application for police protection; the police shall consider it strictly in accordance with law pending the appeal.

Kankanala Aruna Vs State of Telangana — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

t3217 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY,^{THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYSIX}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶6

T NO: Fr:F) F 201

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kankanala Aruna,^{wo. Ravinder Reddy, Aged 39 ye_ars, occ Agriculture R/o} M;;;;"6r.^{Village and rraanoar, Jivas-hankar BhupalpallvDistrict(old} Karimnagar District)

¶9

.PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . State of Telangana,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary'HomeDepartment} Secretariat,^HYderabad

¶12

Station House^{Officer, Mahadevpur Police Station' Mahadevpur' Jayashankar} Bhupalpally^{District (old KarimnagarDistrict)}

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under^{Article 226 of the Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances^{stated in the afiidavit filedtherewith' the High Court may be pleased} toissueanyappropriateWrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenature ofWritofMandamusdeclaringtheactionoftheRespondentsinnotreceivingthe application^{of the Petitionerfor providingpolice protection to the propertyin Survey} No.98/B admeasuring^{Ac.2'04Gts , situated at BommapurVillage' Mahadevpur} Mandal,JayashankarBhupalpallyDistrict(oldKarimnagarDistrict),pursuanttothe JudgmentandDecreepassedino.s.No.52l20l2onthefileoftheCourtofthe Senior Civil Judge,^{Manthanidated 19-08-2019as illegal' null' void and arbitrary'}

¶15

,| N

¶16

PetitionunderSectionls.lcPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed^{in supportof the writ petition'the HighCourt may be pleasedto direct}

¶17

the 2nd Respondent to^{provide police protection by receiving application from the} Petitioner, pursuant to the Judgment^{and Decreepassed in o.s.No.52l2012on the} file of the court of the senior^{civil Judge, Manthanidated 19-08-2019,pending} disposal of the^{pnlsentWrit Petition.}

¶18

t.A. : 3 OF 20'19

¶19

Ch.Pochi Fleddy, S/o.^{Buchi Reddy, aged about 53 years, Occ: Agriculture,} R/o. Bomrrapur Village, Mahadevpur^{Mandal,Dist.Jayashankar'T'S'}

¶20

.PETITIONER

¶21

AND

¶22

Kankanala Aruna, wo.^{Ravinder Reddy Aged39 years, occ Agriculture R/o.} Mahadevpur village and^{MandalJayashankar BhupalpallyDistrict (old} Karimnagar District)

¶23

State oi^{'l-elangana,Rep. by its Principal SecretaryHomeDepartment} Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶24

Station Hor.rse Officer,^{Mahadevpur Policestation Mahadevpur, Jayashankar} Bhupalpally District^{(old Karimnagar District)}

¶25

...RESPONDENTS

¶26

Petition und,-'r Section 151 CPC^{praying thatin the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court maybe pleasedto vacate the} interim order date,l^{16.10.2019 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2019 in the above writ Petition.}

¶27

Counsel for the t'etitioner:^{SRI K.DURGA PRASAD}

¶28

Counsel for the tlespondents:^{SRI D.PRADEEP' AGP FOR HOME}

¶29

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶30

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶32

WRIT PETITION No. 2'1589 OF 2019

DATE: 10.02.2026

Between:

Kankanala Aruna

... Petitioner

AND

State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and another.

¶39

.. Respondents

¶40

o R D E R

¶41

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶42

lndia seeking the following relief:

¶43

". . -to rssue any appropiate Wit, Order or direction more padiculaly one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not receiving the application of the Petitioner for providing police^protection to the^property in Suruey No 98/B admeasuing Ac.2-04 Gfs., slfuated at Bommapur Village, Mahadevpur Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District (old Kaimnagar Distict), pursuant to the Judgment and Decree passed in O.5.No.52f2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Manthani dated 19-08-2019 as illegal, null, void and arbitrary and to pass such other order or orders..."

¶44

¶45

Nn(,"i l(/.1,. No. 21 589^0J2019

¶46

I have heard^{Mr. K' Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the} petitioner and Mr. D. Pradeep,^{learned AssistantGovernment Pleader for} Home, app,--a1ing^{on behalf of both the respondents.}

¶47

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner submits that, despite therebeing} ajudgmenlanddecreeino.S.No'52of2Ol2onthefileofthelearned Senior civil Judge,^{Manthani,the respondents/policeauthorities are not} receiving cr acting^{upon the petitioner's request for police protectionin} respect of the^{petition-mentioned landedproperty'Aggrievedby such} inaction, the^{present writ petition has beenfiled seekingappropriate} directions to the^{respondents.lt is further submiftedthat, this court,} having taken note of^{the subsisting decree in favour of the petitioner,} passedaninterimorderdated16.lo.2olgdirectingtherespondentslo provide police^{protection.However, learned counsel fairly submits thatan} appeal has been^{filedagainst the saiddecree and that the sameis} presently pending consideration^{before the appellate Court' ln the} circumstances, it^{is prayed that adirectionbe issued to the} responder ts/police^{authoritiesto consider the petitioner'srepresentation} for extending^{police protection,as he continues to be in possessionand} enjoymenl ofthe^{subjectproperty.}

¶48

Learned Assistant Government^{Pleader submits that,pu'rsuant to} the interinr direction of^{this Court,the petitioner approached the police}

¶49

¶50

N7R,/ ltz.l>. No. 2l i89 t{ 20t 9

¶51

authorities on^{21.10.2019 seeking protection,and the same was duly} extended. lt is further^{submittedthat the respondentsare readyand} willing to^{provide police protectionas and when required, subjectto law.} Accordingly,^{appropriate orders are sought.}

¶52

I have^{perused the material available on record.}

¶53

Having regard to the^{avermentsmade in the writ affidavit, the} interim direction earlier^{granted by this court,and the stand taken by the} respondents/police authorities,^{it wouldbe appropriate to streamline the} procedure for seeking^{protection.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to} submit an appropriate^{application to the competentpolice authorityas} and when^{polibe protectionis required.Upon receiptof such application,} respondent No. 2 shall^{consider the sameand take appropriate action} stricfly in accordance^{with law, keeping in view the subsisting decreeand} the pendency of the aPPeal.

¶54

With the above direction, this^{Writ Petition is disposed ofThere} shall be no order as to^costs.

¶55

Pending miscellaneous^{applications, if any, shall stand closed}

¶56

SD/-L. VIJAYA^LAXMI ASSISTANTIEGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY/' sEcrFozN^oFFlcER

¶57

To, 1. The Principal^{Secretary, HomeDepartment' Secretariat' Hyderabad' Stateof} Telangana.

¶58

Telangana.

¶59

1. The Station^{Houseofficer, Mahadevpur Police Station Mahadevpur'} - j"r1.tt"nf"r Bhupalpally District (old Karimnagar District) s. 6?"^{-iC't"tnr ri.'otinon PRASAD,Advocate[oPucl}

¶60

Two CCs to^{GP FOR iOftlff, fign Court for the State of Telangana' at} Hyderabad [OUT]

.y 5. Two CD^CoPies

HIGH COI'RT

DATED: 1,010212026

ORDER

WP.No.21 589 of 2019

T HE s
()
2 7 r[E 2026

¶67

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS

¶68

@
L
a
i

Kankanala Aruna v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kankanala Aruna v. State of Telangana

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

Pernapati Sreekanth Vs The State of Telangana

Naeem Mirza Vs The State of Telangana

Chintala Swapna @Kethi Reddy Swapna, Vs Chinthala Raji Reddy

Deekonda Pandari Vs State of Telangana

Baktula Sandeep Vs The State of Telangana

Pulyala Sandhya Rani Vs M/s. Ujwala Hire Purchase and Leasing