V. Ramakrishla S/o v. Madana Mohana Rao Age

R12. B. Dinakar S/o B. Sri Rama Murhty Age 59 years, Occ Private Service, I{o H.No. 71,/1, SBH Colony, Thirumalagheery, Secunderabad. R13. Koneru Srinivasa Ramesh Choudary S/o Age 44 years, Occ Business llo E-701,, Aparna Towers, Kothaguda, Kondapur, Hyderabad. R14. A. Gopala Krishnaiah S/o Late Sundara Ramaiah Age M years, Occ Retired Army Officer, Il,/o H.No. C-15/2, AFOCHS, 2"d Cresent Road, Sainikpuri, Kapra, R.R. District. R15. V. Ramakrishla S/o V. Madana Mohana Rao Age 60 years, Occ Business, I{o 515, Myhome N{adhuban Aprts, Srinagar Coiony, Hyderabad - 73. R16. V. Lakshmi @o Y. Ramakrishna Age 55 years, Occ Housewife, It/o 515, MyhomeMadhuban Aprts, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad - 73 R17. N.V. Raghava I(ao S/o Dr. N.V. Koteshwara Rao Age 59 years, Occ Business, R/o Flat No. 501, Sri Mukha Residency, Plot Bo. 150, H.N o. 8-3-7027/2, Srinagar Colonp Khairtabad, Hyderabad - 500 073. R18. Dr. N.B.T. Sundari D/o N.V. Raghava Rao 1.ge 57 years, Occ Doctor l{r/o Flat No. 501, Plot No. 150, Sri Mukha Residency, Khairtabad, Hyderabad - 500 073. R19. Mantha Surya Prakash S/o MSP Sastry Age 60 years, Occ Business, I{o Flat No. 28, H.No. 10-2-262 Fashion Apartrnents, West Maredpally, Secunderabad - 500 026. R20. Mantha Sunitha S/o Martha Surya Prakash Age 51 years, Occ Housewife, I{r/o FIat No. 28, H-No - 10-2-267,Fashion Apartments, West Maredpally, Secunderabad - 500 026. Respoodenls Nos.10 to 20 are impleaded as pcr C.O. dt.17.04.2025 in IA. No. 4/2025. ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein in interfering in civil dispute with the Unofficial Respondents herein land in SY.No. 136 to an extent of Acres.S-O2 Guntas situated at Chinnagolkonda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles.l 4, 21 and 300 (A) of the Constitution of lndia and further declare the inaction of the Respondent No.2 herein in not acting upon complaint made by the petitioner Dated.03.1 .2025 as being illegal arbitrary. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 not to interfere in the civil dispute the land in SY.No.'136 to an extent of Acres.8-02 Guntas situated at Chinnagolkonda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the Respondent No.2 to consider the representation made by the petitioner dated. O3.O1.2025 as per the law, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. c o u n s e I f o r th e Pet it i o n "'' r1?'#;lffX*1X1,T, s e n i o r c o u n se I Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.5to9 : counserrortheRespono"H$,tf f".'3-351-Y.t',ffl0J5ltXtt,r*AlEKHA The Court made the following: ORDER o THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.821 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri V. Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Ms. Sanjana, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 4, Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appcaring for Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned Counsel for impleaded rcspondent Nos.10 to 20 and perused the record.

2. The case of the petrtioner, in brief, is that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are interfering with the civil dispute existing between the petitioner and the unofficial respondents herein in respect of land in Sy. No.136 to an extent of Ac.8.02 gts. situated at Chinnagolkonda village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reclcly District, which action of the respondents it is contended is highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14, 2l and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia.

3. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 would submit that there are about 3 cases registered against the petitioner h erein uide Ctime Nos.579 of 2022, 4.01 and 4O2 of 2023; that the respondent authorities cxcept rnvestigating into the aforesaid crime are not 2 involving themselves in the disputes existing between the petitioner and the unofhcial respondent or the impleaded respondents in respect of the land in Sy. No. 136 of Chinnagolkonda village, Shamshabad Man.l-a1, Ranga Reddy District in any manner.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the impleaded respondents on the other hand would submit that the petitioner does not possess land of Ac.S 02 gts. in Sy. No.136 of Chinnagolkonda village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as being claimed by him and the petitioner has been taking different pleas before different forums as to the land held by him.

5. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the petitioner had approached this Court, without having any actual land and by obtaining order restraining the respondent authorities from interfering in the civil dispute is trying to trespass into the land of the petitioner and on the impleaded respondents approaching the respondent authority, the said authorities are not taking any action in view of the order passed by this Court restraining the respondent authorities from interfering in the dispute in relation to the aforesaid land and seeks for vacating the order. a, J

6. I have taken note ofthe respective contentions urged.

7. The petitioner herein is claiming that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are interfering in civil dispute which they have with the unofficial respondents herein in respecl of land in Sy. No.136 to an extent of Ac.8.02 gts. of Chinnagolkonda village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner honrever, in the affidavit filed along with caveat petition before the Principal Senior Civil Judge had claimed to be the owner and possessor of agricultural land in Sy. No.136 part, admcasuring Ac.1.09 gts. and 1.08 gts. srtuated at Chinnagolkonda village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Thus, the petitioner had claimed different extents of land before different forums. However, in a Writ Petition hled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot adjudicate the disputed question of fact as to whether the petitioner is the holder of land to an extent of Ac.8.O2 gts. as claimed in the affidavit filed in support of the caveat or no land is held by them as claimed by impleaded respondents.

8. However, it is also to be noted that it is not the duty of the respondent police authorities to decide or adjudicate the extent of land possessed by him. The duties which the respondent police is required to discharge are to ensure maintenance of law 4 and order and cannot involve themselves in civil dispute. Even in respect of certain acts of trespass though the person affected by such an act is entitled to approach the respondent authorities by lodging a complaint, the police authorities can only extend temporary protection to prevent further perpetration of such offence or to prevent lau'and order situation arising out of such act. The duty of the respondent authorities in such a situation is by registering a crime in relation to the alleged occurrence, and conducting investigation by bringing to book the accused in crime by producing them before the concerned Magistrate and cannot by themselves takc the role of revenue authority or civil Court to determine the civil disputes.

9. The respondent police authorities, on complainant approaching them by registering a crime, can take interim action by protecting the complainant life and liberty. However, the complainant has lo approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction with regard to the alleged interference by the person who it is alleged as having committed such an offence. Only upon approaching the competent Court of civil jurisdiction by availing the appropriate civil remedy. Without initiating such civil action by the person alleging violation / breach by the other party cannot seek to resblve the dispute involving police 't Y a) ) authorities, by giving a criminal colour what is otherwise a civil dispute.

10. This Court in similar circumstances in S. Mq.sthan Saheb and others u. P.S.R. Anjanegulu and othersl by referring to the provisions of Hyderabad City Police Act, i 348 Fasli, A.P. (Andhra Area) District Police Act, 1859 and A.P. (Telangana Area) District Police Act, 1329 Fasli, had held that Section 16 of thc Telangana Act postulates that police officers enrolled under the Telangana Act shall not have any other pov",er except powers conferred by the Telangana Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. 1 1 . In the facts of the case, though the impleaded respondents claim that inspite of he approaching the respondent authority bringing to their notice of breach/ violation by the petitioner herein and lhe respondent authorities not taking any action in view of the order of this Court restrarning the respondent police from involving themselves in the dispute belween the petitioner and the unofficial respondents, including the impleaded respondents, a perusal of the interim order of this Court would clearly show that this Court had restrained the respondent authorities only from intcrfering in civil dispute and ' 2002(2) AnwR 532 -; 6 not with regard to any law and order issue arising on account of acts of either of the petitioner or the respondent. In the event of any such occurrence taking place, the respondents are not denuded of their power vested in them to initrate necessary action under the Criminal Procedure/ Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) against the perpetrators of crime nor can it be said that the Court having prevented the authorities from discharging their legal dutics.

12. Further, as noted hereinabove, whilc the petitioner claims that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 are interfering in civil dispute, the impleaded respondents on the other hand claim that despite they approaching the respondent authorities bringing to their notice of commission of a cognizable offence, the authorities are not taking any action thereon on account of the orders passed by this Court to restrain the respondent authorities in interfering the civii disputes, this Court is of the vtew that the aforesaid order explicitly makes it clear that the interference by the respondent authorities are only directed not to involve themselves in civil dispute not with regard to any of the violations under BNSS or any olher criminal provisions of law when brought to their notice. l

13. In view of the above, since it is informed to this Court that three cases have been registered against the petitioner herein and that the respondent authorities except conducting invesligation into the aforesaid crime are not interfering in civil dispute, this Court is of the view that while placing the albresaid statement on record, the respondent authorities are to be directed to discharge their duties in exercise of power vested in them under the criminal law.

14. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUTY REGISTRAR -1 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Principal Secretary, Department of Home' Secretariat' State of Telangana, HYderabad.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad' 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad RGIA' Cyberabad' 4. The Station House Officer, Shamshabad Rural Police Station Cyberabad' 5. One CC to Ms.V.SANJANA, Advocate lOPUCl 6. Two CCs to GP FoR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [oUT] 7. One CC to Ms.VEDULA CHITRALEKHA, Advocate lOPUCl 8. Two CD CoPies. BSK..w BS HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 1 B - l -l il: '>-'r -i;,- ,. \. 'a <;N P\ 17 JUl,l 2[6 // -) c D ')- ORDER WP.No.821 of 2O25 "n'-l H r DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ltcq??s,) V'- Eulau