The High Court · 2025

agcd about 60 year.s, Occ.: Busincss, R/o Villa No. 46, Sector.C, My I-ionrc ;\nl<ura, Tellapur, Ramachandl apurarn, ^ Sanga Reddy District. Telangarra _ 5 I z }(Andey Saryanar.ayana S/o Sri Br.alrrn aged About 58 year-s, Occ : Business R/o FIa[ No 30 i, Sree Loukva Honre Adj Secretariat Colony, ManikoncJa, l)tippal,quda, Ranga Redcly Dis rr-i c i, 1'elangana - 500 089. 02 032. ananciartt, s, I - --rr{ai,,

23. Thrmu Sham Sunder, S/o.Sri T.Narasimha Rao, aged 71 years, Occ i Busine ss, R/o.Plot No.186, Sy.No.1007, Bh'agyanagar Society, Kukatpally, Hyder:tbad.

24. Iv'l.'/enkat Ramana Reddy, S/o.Sri lvl.Laxma Reddl , aged 38 years, Occ : Servic,:, Rio.Plot No. 1 85, Sy.No.1007, Bhagyanagar Society, Kukatpally, Hyder:tbad. "if tnn 8 .o 22 are impleaded as per Court Order dated 1l-9-2025 in LA.No.3 of ; zozqr--:- -k- tnn 23 and 27 are impleaded as per Court Order dated 1g'g 2025 in LA No.1 of I t .,^^Er- zwLJ | €_ -' RESPONDENTS Petitio'r Under Artrcle 226 of the Constitution of lnl a prayrng that in the circumstances srtated in the affidavit filed therewith, tho High Court may be pleased to is;ue an order, direction, or writ, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of l\,4and rmus. directing the respondents 1 to 4 to prov rie police protection to maintain statrs quo with regards to possession till final di::posal of the four suits OS Nos.898 to 901 of 2001 on the file of the Hon'ble '1st l\dditional Senior Civil Judge, Rang a Reddy district, since transferred to the ()ourt of the Hon'ble P rlncip al Serrior Civil Jud e, Kukatpally renumbered as OS Nos.588 to 591 of 2022 i^ tespt)ct ol' the land in Survey No.1007 of Kukatpa ly village and lt4andal, Medchal - Ir,4 rlkalgiri District, Telangana as directed by th€, Hon'ble Apex Court vide orders dated 01.10.2018 (Ex.P-1 ) and 19.08.2020 (E: P-2) in the interest of juslice v,, l.A.NO:1 OF it023 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affrdavit lile(j in support of the petition, the High Cor.rt may be pleased to drrect the res rondents 1 to 4 to provide police protection in rraintaining the status quo wrth regards to possession as ordered by the Honble /,Jrex Court vide orders dated 01 .10.2018 and 19.08.2020, in respect of the land rn Survey Number 1007 of Kukatpally village and [,4andal, Medchal - Malkajgiri Di::tr ct in the interest of justice. .-- l.A.NO :5 OF 2023 Between: ,/ Mts Bhaovanaoar Plot Owners Welfare Associatjon, its office situated at premises r/ irr" a:i-81sli2I, phr."-t, Kamalapuri Colony, Srinagar Colonv, Baniara Hills' Hyderabad, rep by its President P Venkat Ram Reddy. .....PETITIONER/RESPONDENT.5 AND 'l n//s Prime Prooerties, partnershlp firm having its registered office at No'10-5- ,t )tiilai. ist rr"oi r.,irni,{hwari coinplex. trlasab Tank, Hvderabad and rep bv its Partner Najeeb Ahmed. ....-RESPONDENTMRIT PETITIONER /2. tne State of Telangana, represented by its- Principal Secretary Home - - o""pr-ri.i"r,t, se"i"i.tiji etiitoings, BR(R Bnavan, Tank Bund' Hyderabad The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissronerate' Gachibowli, Hyderabad. The Deputy Commissioner of Police' Cyberabad Police Commissionerate' Gachibowli, Hyderabad. The Station House Officer, Madhapur Police Station, Madhapur, Hyderabad' . .....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 I\4/s. Bhaovanaoar Co-operative Housing Society Limited T A' No 164/1961 , n"o w iii cn"irman, Pbrson-in-Charge Committee, E. Raja Uma Reddy, raE. Riiumma Reddv. S/o. E.V. Krishna Reddy, aged 60 years, Occ' eriin"ii, witn office it Flat No.502, R.R NI R Enclave, Plot No 145 and 146, Survey oi lndia Colony, Chandra Nayak Nagar, Madhapur 500081, Hyderabad. Pilli Bikshapathi, S/o Late P. Balaiah, aged about 74 years, Occ Agnculture, R6 H No.8-50, Khaitalapur, KukatpalltVillage, Balanagar lr'1andal, Ranga Reoav oistrict. Resoondbnt Nos. 5 and 6 are impleaded as per C'O'dt' 13.03'.2024 in lA Nds. 2t2023 and 1/2024 respectively. 3 ,,,4 .-6 7 Jt -Ul.) 4egt:ur: .g fi (lhandr-trs:klrar Iie clcl-v, S/o. A- Vittal Reddy, agcd a[)()ut 54 ],c'u-s, Occ.: Service, li/o.FL No. I ) 634/4134, F2023,1'16, Anand []z njura Societ1,, I{oad No 12, Banjara I illr;, Ill,derabad - 500034. 'l A P \iisIrnur.ar.dlran Ilaju, S/o. P.V. Ii-ama Raju, aqcd x[r()r t a() \ dlus, Occ-: Business, ..., R/o. Plot ro 9(). [,ane No.3, VahiniNagar, Opp Dcll,i PLrhlic School, Diarnond Point Center S ecunclc r':.1,:rcl i00 009. lo X I'- BapLr ji. S./tr, \,'c rr li:rtariuna Ra-iu, aged al,or t -iE \ c:Ils, Occ:.: tlusincss, R/o. Rrrrlr rrni Yillagc, Bapatla Di:;trict, Arrdhra l)t adesir 522 I I l. I i X. M/s. S(N i. ['r'o]ccts Private Limitcd Ilcp. bv it:,\utlrorized I)crson, I)nttlL Vce r:L \, e rrhata Satyzrnarayana Raju, S/o. D. agccl ahoui r'- r,c u s, Occ.: Rusincss, rvith o['lle,: ai :]51-il-40, I]ehind I]OC I-irnited, Sccthanrn itcllrilra. Visal<hapatnarr - 530 013. 1r- k I)aLla Sub r.rrir l I)ovi. W/o. Datla Klishnam Raju, I(L'isl'rnrrm Rajrr, iiged atr()Lr: 7() \'.:rrs, Occ.: Ilouschold, Itio. IJ- No (.- l- ll, lst (lloss llastlrinapuri Colony, Sainil<1-rLu i [)ost. I.,ccsala, Ranga l{eddy District, I Ivdcr''rh'rtl. l'clrrnqana 500 094. Vcqesne Vijlvr iLrn.r'rri, Wio. V.V.K. Appala Raju, aq.ed aboLr i-7 _r c:rr-s, Occ.: I-Iousehold, It/o. irlat f ,o l-1. lOth Cross, Sri Sri Castle Apts, ilehinrl ( ir clrt:q ,\l)attmcnts, Gebbal, I(empapura, Il ansalorc -5 ()0()2.+, Il. lugcd aboLr' 6:L r cul's. Occ-: Ap--icul{.ule, Ii/o. I L Nr . l-l I s- I 22. z\clithya NagaL., Ncar I ilVI'l J liilr. I(ukatpllly, Iie.lir, S/o. ItllVSS Rarnakrisl.rnarn Raju .i.rinadl-a 13ts ) t5x' r+x rk la r8x Ilycler.zrbad, i'elangana 500 072. N. Panata Vardhanarnrna, W/o. N. Rarnaklishnaur Raiu, aged about B3 years, Occ.:Household, R/o. H. No. 7-1-621i321, Flat No. 502, Road No. Community Ilall, S.R. Nagar, Amcerpet, Ilydcrabad,-fclangana 500 038. t(olli Saroja, Wo. K. Satyanarayana Rao, aged about 42 years, Occ. : I-lousehold, Ii/o. H. No. 20-l l311, Str-eet No.4, llcside ATM Canata Banlc, Dayanand Nagar', iVtattra.i giri, Ranga Reddy District, 'felangana - 500 047. [ [ycielabad, Nzlantena Padrna Santhi, Wo. M.V. Rama Chandra Raju, agcd abor.rt 5 5 years, Occ.: Llousehold, R/o. Flat No. 202, BMR Residency, Plot No. 143 &. 144, [{oad No. 3, Kal<atiya I{ills, Madhapur', S cril ingampally, Ranga Rcddy District [[ydcrabad, Tciangana 500 081. Ilal abaclhr-r ni Sunitha, W/o. Mallil<arj una Rao, agcd about 55 ycars, Occ.: Household, Iiio. H. No. 8-i-898/30/2, Nagarjuna Colony, '[elangana - 500 073. t{ycicrabad, I q X t Jdd:rraju Vasudeva Varua, S/o. Uddaraju Ramaklishnam Raiu, :,gcd aboui 70 Years, Occ.: Business. I{io. LI. No. 25-1-i3, FLat No- 25, Venkatesh Estate, 1i I Clhandrarnouli Nagar', VTC, (lltnLur, Andhla Pradesh 522 001 . rp I S:rgi Vrrri Raju, S/o. Sagi Naga Raju, rgc,.l ahoul 57 ycars, Occ.: Busincss, R/o. i l. No. 8-3-898/30/1, Nagarjuna Nagar', \''c Ilareddygu da, Atneet'pet, Sl inagar Colony, t Il deLabad, Telangana - 500 073. r1 [ f atidindi Venkata Subba Lakshmi Nagamani, W/o- K' Bapuii Ita-iu, :r11cci about 60 years, Occ.: Business, Rio. Villa No, 46, Sector C, My Iiome Ankura, 'l-e I lapr.rr, Ramachandt'aput'atn, Sanga l{eddy Distiict, Tclangana 502 032. >1 lf{ Andey Satyarrarayana S/o Sri Bral-rmanandam, -- . i- agcd About 5 8 years, Occ : Business, l{/o IrLat No 301 , Sree Loukya Homes, Aclj Secre[aliat Colony, Manikonda, {'rLppaiguda, Ilanga Rcddy District, -l-e Iatrgatra -5 00 089- IT I ') !V/o. N. Ram akr.ishnarr.r Household Flat No. 502, Road No agar, Ameet.pet, Iiaj u. I i',,dcr': b l5 ,& N. Patla ai1. ieirrng:rna 500 012. fil \,'er-cihanaurrna agedabout8iycar.s C)cc iVo. H. No /-1-621 ) Comrnunitv I Iall. S.I(. N Flyderalrad. 1 cJan.qarra _ 500 038 iS: ro;.r. \\ ,,. K. Srrl.rrrrrr about J2 _r,oar s, Occ.: I {ouseirold !('c Koll R/o. I{. {o It)- l I]i i Bcside ;ri-ftVi ( lr Mallcajg ri, Ilanr:a Itcddy D rstrrct -l'eian:tirna Hydelabrd, - 5OO 047 S tree r No.4 Lnar a Bank yana Rao, Dayanand Nagar., lr )O Mantena Padnra Sanrhi. \Vio. M V. Ilaura Chandr.a ll eu u, )) _\.cltrs, Occ: Ilousehold It N,ltl ltesidency, plor No. t 43 & I ,14 i-va I Iills. Madhapur, Rrrnga lieclcl1, Distr.ict l8N t1 Y ,D X LI Y. Lv X \\ ,'o. iVlallikarj una Rao, )c c.: Household Nagarjuna Colony, I -1'c l clalqarra 500 0g t 3(lE./10,r il r)g:uta _ :(J0 073. aged about at Ni,. l0l R/o. FI Road No l, Kal<at Selilinga nprr iI,r,, I{yderah: d, Balabadh.Lni S un irlra. agcd aborLt ji r,cars. ( R/o. I{. N.l. U--t- Flyricraba 1, [Jddara-j u \/asudcva Vtrr rna aged aboLrL 7() ] car.s, Occ R/o. Il. No. l-i t- [/? Chancl .arn o irii Na G untrrr-, Airclltr-r l)r:Ldc.slt 522 OO7 Sagi Mani llatrr, Sio. Sa aged about 57 r R/o. iJ. No. 8 3 -s93i l0i I , Nagarjuna Nagar., YellareddvuLr, lir.,,\pt.cr Hyderabacl -fcilinqanu peL, Srinagar CoJony, Kalidindi Venliarl Subba Lal< agcd :rborrt 60 _r,.,-rr . Oc c.: llu R/o. Villa |lo. ,l(j. Sccror.C, Tellapur', It rnr r ch: urrit alt u r-a rtt, Sanga Redcy Disrr Andey Sat_y In h r.11,,,2111x aged About 58 _vcars. ( R,/o lrlat No l0 L. Srce .{dj Secretar iaL ( Puppalguda. Rlrr T cl:urganl i00 (.rS, fclangan a - 502 032 S/o Sli Bralrmanandam )cc : Il us iness I-r>ul<r,a Il onres, lo lon_v. Manii<otrcla e Iic dclr D is tr.ic i clrL s, (Jcc.: B usiness gi Naga I{aj u, -i00 07i M), IJorne Anlcur.a S/o. Uddar.aju Ramakr.isluram Ilaju, il ustness )) [j lar No, ,,.ar', \i1'f , Ve nl<atesh Estate shmi Nagamani, Wo. K Bapuji Raiu. srness --' 23. Thumu Sham Sunder. S/o.Sri T.Narasimha Rao' aged 7'l years, Occ : Business, R/o.Plot No.186, Sy.No.1007, Bhagyanagar Society, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 24 N.4.Venkat Ramana Reddy, S/o.Sri M.Laxma Reddy, aged 38 years' Occ ./ Service, R/o.Plot No.185, Sy.No.1007, Bhagyanagar Society, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. d 1iR g to zz are impleaded as per Court Order dated-19-9-2025 ;n 1'A No.3 of r Court Order dated 19-9-2025 in I tl91 "f _ (RR 23 and 24 are imPleaded as Pe 2025\- 2024\ _./ .RESPONDENTS 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 vacate the interim Order dl.08lo2l2o23 passed rn Writ Petition No.3594/2023 in the interest of justice |.A.NO: 2 OF 2024 Between Pilli Bikshapathi, S/o Late P. Balaiah, aged about 74 years, Occ. Agriculture, . . R/o. H. No.8-50, Khaitalapur, Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ...PETITIONERYPROPOSED RESPONDENT AND .-- 1. tr.4/s Prime Properties, pa(nership firm having. its registered office at No.10-5- 2t1t8, 1Sr Floor, Maheshwari Complex, Masab Tank, Hyderabad and rep by its Partner Najeeb Ahmed. .....WRIT PETITIONER -.. 2. f he State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary Home - Department, Secreiariat Buildings, BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund, Hyderabad

3. The Commissroner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, .-/ Gachibowh,Hyderabad.

4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, -z Gachibowli, Hyderabad.

5. The Station House Officer, ft4adhapur Police Statjon, N1:]dhapur, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

6. M/s. Blragyanagar Co-operative Housing Society Limrt-^d T.A. No. 16411961., Rep. by its Chairman, Person-in-Charge Committee, E Raja Uma Reddy, @E. Rajurnma Reddy, S/o. E.V. Krishna Reddy, aged 60 years, Occ. Business, with office at Fiat No.502, R.R.tV.R Enclave, Plot No. 145 and '146, Survey of lndia Colony, Chandra Nayak Nagar, Irrladhapur 500081, Hydere bad.

7. Piili Bir R/o H. Reddy 13. 03 i shapathi, Sio Late P Balaiah, aged about 74 yt zrrs. Occ. Agriculture, No 8 50, Khartalapur, Kukatpally Village, Balanzrgar Mandal, Ranga District. Respondent Nos 5 ar.rd 6 are impleaded as per C.O.dt. '024 in lA Nos 2/2023 and_112024 r"igg"tlu_"ll; €traar€E to F. 1v Chandrasel,har Redcl1,, S/o. A. Virral Rcddy, agcd ab(,ut.5.1 year.s, Occ.: Scr.vicc, R/o.H. Ir'o. 8-2-694/4/1,+. F202i, t,16. Anand Ban;ar-zr Socict1,,. I{oad No I2, Barrjare 'lills. I lr rlcr;rl,;r(l - )r)00 I i. P. Vishn rvardhan Ilaju, S/o. I).!'. Rtrma R:rju, agcd abott tj6 vears. Occ.; Businr:ss R/o. Plot No. ()9. [_anc No.]. \.ul,ini Nagar. Opp. Dcl ri I'rrlrlic Sclrr,,,l. I);r1r,,r,rl l,oirrl r.cntcr, Secunderab:rtl - 5ll0 009. P. Ilapuji Sro. \/enkar:rr.rrra Rrr jr:. aged aboltt:S vcrr.s. ( )c. .: Ilrr:irrr.:s- R/o. Bud<lanr \rillagc, IlrLpaLIrr i)irrrr-icr, Andhla P'adr'sl' .ill M/s. SSNR l,ro jecLs pr.iverc I.inrircd Rep. by it;;\uthorizccl I)crso n. Datta Vecr-a Vcnkata .SutvAr121.21_1,1111,, RalLr, S/o. [). K r :;ltnam Rajr-r, aged abouL 5 Z I'ears, Occ : Busine ss. wirh offict: ar //i I_g_;10. Ileirind I]OC Linrircd, Seethammaclhar.a, Visal(hapatnanr 510 0l l. l>f. Datla Subhadr-:r Devi. W/o_ I)arla I(rishnarr.r Ralu, ilF Ill aged aboLlt 7(r vears, Occ.: IJoLrscltold. R/o. Il. Nc.6-3 ll, lsL (.ross lllstlrinlpLrr.i (,trlony, Sainil<puri post, Kecs:rr.a, Ilange I{cclclv L)isrr.ict. Hydcrabad. l .lrrr g-rn;r i00 no.r J3p Vcgcsna Vij a.;al< LLrnari. W/o \/.\i l(. r\ppala Ra.ju, qgqd abqqq 57 yoars, Occ.: [Jorrse lrolc], R/o. [:lar Nr T _2. lOth C]r.oss, Sri Sr i Castle r\prs, Behind Garlrerl r\ParrnrcnLs, Geblral, Iientpapura, Bangalore - 5 (r0024. l+X R. l-r'inacll-rz R;r.jLL, S/o_ I<llVSS Rrrnrrlirislrnarn [i:{u. a_ged about 54 vcars. Occ.: i\q.iculltrr.e. R tr. II. Ni..r. l-'i-s-l_... \,lirirr r \.rr,,rr. Ncal IIVIT Ii Ils. IiLri<aLyr:rllr,. \ € Petition Under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim orde r dated 08.02.2023 made in W P. No.35 9412023 l.A.NO:2 oF 2025 Between Jl.fftumuSham Sunder, S/o Srr T Narasimha Rao' ag€d 71 vears Occ:Business' R/o Plot No.186, sv No f ,i6?lanlsy];;sai socieiv' k't'atp;llv' Hvderabad / 2. M.venkalRamana Reddv, S/o'Sri M'Laxma Reddy'. aged qp y9.a':' Occ : Service' ' nl".pl"'i r.i" ias, sv No r ot'i Enagyanagar Society''Kukatpallv' Hyderabad ....PETITIONERS/PROPOSED RESPONDENTS 7 & 8 AND tr,4/s. Prime Properties, partnership firm having its registered office at No'10-5- zir'la, i'sirr".i-rr,iunLin*rri 6ofrJiex r'aas5o Tani' Hvderabad and rep bv its Partner Naieeb Ahmed .....RESPONDENTM,RIT PETITIONER - 2. State of lelangana, represented by ils Princrpal Secretary Home Department' - - Slii"iuriai buiioinqs, 6CxR an"'an, Tank Bund' Hvderabad'

3. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate' Gachibowli, HYderabad'

4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Police Commissionerate' .,- Gachibowli,HYderabad ..,

5. The Station House officer, IvladhapUr PoIice Station, N4adhapur, Hyderabad. ....RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 6. fi//s. Bhagyanagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited T A No 164/1961 - n"p uv iii Cnairman. FEr.ion-in ch"se"Commiitee' E Raja Uma Reddy' -E v Krish-na Reddy' aocd 60 vears Occ CdE nliri"-, neoov slo Business, wrth ollrce JtHIt'ru. so)' n n u'n dnct6'e Pl6t No 145 and 146' 5;;;G rnd a-Corony, Chandra Nayak Nagar' Madhapur 500081' Hyderabad ' n

7.Plli Bikshapathi,, S/o Late P. Balaiah, aged about 74 years' Occ' Agriculture', R/o H. No B-50, xnaitaraiui, t<ut,ip'f rv viitag", Batanalar Mandal' Ranga Reddv Distnct. Responoent ruosl! anl o Jre impreated as per-C O dt 13'03'2024 in lA Nos. 2/2023 and 112024 respectively' , Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, lhe High (llurt may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 08.02.2023 passed in WP No.3594/2023. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI G.VIDYA SAGAR, LEARNED SENIOR L-' COUNSEL SRI SRINIVAS MANTHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 FOR HOM: SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP ,- Counsel f('r the Respondent No.5 : SRI D.GNANESWARA NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent No.6 : SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY Counsel fc'r the Respondent Nos.7 to 21 : SRI BOMMINENI VIVEKANANDA, 4_- LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI L.PREETHAM REDDY Counsel fcr the Respondent Nos.22 & 23 : SRI MD. SAMEER AHMED, LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADRI The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 3594 OF 2023 EDRo R This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief "...lo lssue an order, direction, or writ, more pafticularly, one in the nature of 'Writ of Mandamus', directing the respondents 1 to 4 to provide police protection to maintain status quo with regards to possesslon till final disposal of the four suls O.S.Nos. 898 to 901 of 2001 on the file of the Hon'ble I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, since transferred to the Courl of the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, renumbered as O.S. Nos. 5BB to 591 of 2022 in respect of the land in Survey No. 1007 of Kukatpally Village and Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana, as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide orders dated 01 .10.2018 and 19.08.2020 in the interest of justice and to pass necessary orders."

2. I have heard [t/lr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Srinivas Mantha, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4; lVlr. D Gnaneswara Naidu, learned counsel for respondent No. 5; and t\l'lr. P. Sri Harsha Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 I have also heard Mr. M. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 7 (subject to orders in l.A. No. 4 o'f 2023, filed for impleadment of M/s Bhagyanagar Plot Owners Welfare Assoclalion); 2 Mr. Bomm neni Vivekananda, learned couns;el representing I\/r. L. Preettram Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 7 to 21 (subject to orders in l.A No. 3 of 2024), and [t/r Md Sameer Ahmed, learned coursel representing Mr. lVlohd. Moin Ahmed Quadri, learned counsel for respondent Nos.22 and 23 (subject to orders in l.A. No. 1 of 2025\. 3 The petitioner claims ownership of Ac.167.00 guntas of land in Survey No.1007, Kukatpally, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Telangana (hereinafter "the subject land"). a) r\lleging fraudulent execution of four sale deeds in favour of M/s. Bhagya,tagar Cooperative Housing Society (respondent No-5)' the petitioner instituted O.S. Nos. 898 to 901 of 2001 before the I Additional Senior Civil ,ludge, Ranga Reddy District. On transfer. these suits were renumbered as O.S. Nos. 588 to 591 of 2022 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, l(ukatpally, where they remain pending- b) n O.S. No. 3306 of 1984, on the file of lhe Vll Junior Civil Judge, City tlivil Court, Hyderabad, a Receiver was zrppointed and took custody of the subject land. The petitioner's application for release of the property (1.A. No.811 of 2004) having been dismissed, filed C.R.P. No 6697 of 2004 before this Court, which released the property in his favou r. -) c) Challenges to the said order in SLP (C) Nos. 11595 of 2009 and 18163 of 2010 were dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10 01 .2017 d) The Receiver thereafter filed a final report dated 18.03.2017 confirming restoration of possession to the petitioner. The plaintiff in O.S. No.3306 of 1984 also filed a lVlemo dated'17.03.20'17 clarifying that Survey No.1007 was not part of the suit schedule e) Respondent No.7, Bhagyanagar Plot Owners Welfare Association (BPOWA), filed Contempt Petitions (C) Nos. 1583 and 1584 of 2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, contending that filing of the Receiver's report amounted to contempt. The petitions were dismissed, thereby confirming the Receiver's report f) ln 2020, lhe petitioner entered into a Joint Development Agreement with M/s. ACE HIBC Private Limited. ln Civil Appeal No. 10128 of 2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by orders dated 0'1 .10.20'18 and later in Contempt Petition (C) No. 433 of 2020, directed all parties to maintain status quo as to possession, prohibited creation of third-party interests, and directed the trial Court to dispose of the title suits within six months S) BPOWA also filed a Review Petition challenging this Court's order in C.R.P. No. 6697 of 2004. The Review was allowed on

0302.2018. However, in SLP (C) No 20052 of 2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside both the review order and the original order in 4 C.R.P. No. €697 of 2004, holding that the land in Survey No'1007 remained under the custody of the Receiver. h) t'levertheless, since the Receiver had already released the property and filed his final report, the contempt petiticns (C) Nos 1583 and 1584 of 2'017 against such release were dismissec ' i) T-he petitioner executed a development agreement for Ac.llg.00gttntasinSurveyNo.l00T.ThoughBPoWAchallengedits registration, this Court in Writ Appeal, by order ciated 29 06 2020' directed the sub-Registrar to register the documents, which was accordingly c one. j) ,\lleging violation of the status quo order, BPOWA filed Contempt Pertition (C) No. 433 of 2020. The Hon'ble {iupreme Court' by order dated 19.08.2020, reiterated its directions regarding stafus quo and non-creation of third-party interests, while once again directing the trial Court to decide the pending title suits within six months' k) The petitioner thereafter lodged police complaints dated '1 9.01 .2022, 02.08.2022' and 10-12.2022, alleging attempts of criminal trespass by miscreants who sought to disturb his possession and damage structures on the subject land' l) Alleging inaction by the police authorities in addressing thesecomFlaints,thepetitionerhasfiledthepresentWritPetition' seeking prolection of his lawful possession over the sr'rbject land' 5

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued a clear direction requiring all parties to maintain status quo with respect to possession of the subject property and prohibiting the creation of third-party interests. lt is submitted that despite such directions, certain unsocial elements illegally interfered with the petitioner's possession. The petitioner, having sought protection from the concerned police authorities, was denied adequate assistance. Left with no other remedy, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court. He further submits that this Court, after considering the submissions, passed an interim direction which was intended only to ensure adherence to the status quo order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court It is emphasized that the prayer in the wrrt petition is limited solely to seeking police protection, and the allegation of the respondents that, on the basis of the interim order, the police are acting to advance the petitioner's possession or otherwise prejudice the interests of the respondents, is unfounded. It is thus asserted that both the prayer in the writ petition and the interim direction are fully consistent with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, being confined only to the maintenance of slalus quo. The petitioner, therefore, prays for passing of appropriate orders

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the interim direction is causing serious prejudice to the respondents 6 It is argued that the police, under the guise of implenrenting the interim order, are rraking efforts to prace the petitioner in possession of the property and to carry out acts which are ex facie impermissible Accordingly, it is prayed that the interim direction be vacated and the writ petition dismissed.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned courrsel on either side and perused the material available on record.

7. The pl:adings discrose that whire the petitioner asserts rights over the subject lirnd, the respondents also claim competing rights in respect thereof. Thu;, it is evident that rival claims are perrding adjudication before competent Civil Court. L From tre pleadings, it emerges that there are two distinct sets of civil proceedings concerning the subject property. Firsily, O S. No. 3306 of 1984 filed by one Mohammed Kazim AIi Khan against M/s. sridevi colonizers ard others before the learned Vll Junior civil Judge, city civil Court, Hyderabad. ln that suit, the entire land in Survey No. .l 007 of Kukatpally Village, was placed under the custody of a Receiver. The said order came to be challenged in revision, and though this court initially released the property in favour of the petitioner, BpOWA carried the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme court. while the orderr in revision was 7 upheld at first instance, upon review the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the orders passed therein, thereby restoring the property to the custody of the Receiver. The petitioner, hgwever, asserts that in the meantime the property had been restored to his possession and a development agreement was executed.

9. Secondly, the petitioner instituted suits challenging the sale deeds allegedly executed fraudulently in favour of Bhagyanagar Cooperative Housing Society Limited (respondent No.7), which forms the foundation of the rights claimed by the unofficial respondents. These suits, now renumbered as O.S. Nos. 588 to 591 of 2022, are pending adjudication before the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kukatpally '10. ln these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 19.08.2020, passed the following directions: 'Having heard learned counsel in all the three contempt petitions, we are of the view that the title suits O.S. Nos. 898, 899, 900, 901 of 2001 pending before the lAdditional Senior Civil Judge be taken up and decided within a period of six months from today. All parties wi maintain status quo as to possession and no third party interest wili be created in the meanwhile. List all the three contempt petitions after the.judgment of the trial court is delivered."

11. The petitioner contends that despite the categorical directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, certain anti-social elements attempted to interfere with his possession, thereby frustrating the stafus quo order. 8 The petitioner, therefore, approached the police authorities seeking protection. Upon their failure to act promptly, thr: petitioner was constrained tr> approach this court by way of the present writ petition. considering the matter, this court passed an interim direction on

08.02.2023 in the following terms: "-leard the learned Senior Counsel Sri G V'idyasagar, appearir g for petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. There shatl be interim direction to respondent No.4 to forthwith act upon the representation of the petitioner daled 1).12.2022, seeking police aid by duly implenenting the stafus qlo order dated O1 .10.2018 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10128 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No' 20052 ct 2018, within a period of three (3) days from ':he date of receipt cf a copy of this order. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home shall get instructions by the next date of hearing' Post on 0'1 .03.2023 in Motion List "

12. A careful reading of the above interim order miakes it abundantly clear that tttis court only directed the police autlrorities to extend assistance for ensuring compliance with the slatus qtro order' Nowhere does the ord3r direct restoration of possession to the petitioner or confer any advantege beyond what was ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 13-ltiserwell.settledpropositionoflawthataSlafusquoordel requires prer;ervation of the existing state of affairs as' on the date of the order, so thrrt no party alters the situation to the detriment of the other. 9 The Supreme Court in Kishoresinh Ratansinh Jadeja v. Maruti Corporation (2009) 1'l SCC 229, reiterated that a slafus quo order binds all parties equally, freezing the factual positign and preventing unilateral actions that may prejudice rival claims. Thus, sfafus quo orders are intended to preserve possession and prevent alienation, transfer, or any act of meddling with the property until the dispute is adjudicated

14. ln the present case, the efficacy of the sfafus quo order dated 19.08.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court extends to all stakeholders in the litigation, including the petitioner and the unofficial respondents. All parties are equally responsible for ensuring compliance with the order.

15. The petitioner alleges that third-party elements have attempted to disturb his possession in violation of the slafus quo order. His approach to the police authorities, therefore, cannot be faulted. Equally, if the possession of any respondent as on the date of the order is disturbed, they too would be entitled to seek similar protection. This Court's interim direction must be understood in that light, as a limited measure requiring the police to act upon representations to prevent violations of the sialus quo order

16. lt is further clarified that this Court's order does not authortze the police to restore possession, effectuate eviction, or otherwise tilt l0 possession in favour of one party. Should such issues arise, it would be open to the p,:titioner or the respondents to place the matter before the Hon'ble Supre,me Court or the trial Court for appropriater directions.

17. This Court is mindful that civil proceedings are pending between the parties ard that contempt petitions arising out of these disputes are already under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, rhe intervention of this Court in the present writ petition is necessarily lirnited to directing the police authorities to extend assistance for securing compliance with the stalus quo order of the Hon'ble Supreme Cottrt. '18. ln vieu'of the above discussion, and as the interim direction has effectively acldressed the grievance of the petitioner, this Court finds it appropriate tt make the said direction absolute, in the interest of justice' '19. The Writ Petition is accordingly ordered as follows Thr: police authorities (respondent Nos. 1 tc, 4) are directed to extend necessary assistance to the petitioner in the event of an)r unlawful interference, including by anti-social elements, in strict compliance with the sfalus quo order dated 01 .10.2018 par;sed by the Hon'ble Supreme Cou( in Civil Appeal No. 10128 of 2018. ll. This principle shall apply equally to the unofficial respondents and all other parties to the pending suits, who are bound by the status quo order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ln the event of any violation, the aggrieved party, whether petitioner or respondent, shall be entitled to approach the competent forum, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the trial Court, for appropriate relief. lll. The police authorities shall act upon any representations or complaints from the parties regarding violation of the stalus quo order, and take steps to ensure strict compliance with the

20. With these directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SDi.MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR I \ To SECTION OFFICER

1. The Princi pal Secretar y, Home Department 5 ecretariat Buildin gs, BRKR Bhavan, Tank Bund, S tale of Telan gana at Hyderabad 2. The Com mrssioner of police Cyberabad Police Commissionerate, Gachibo wli, Hyderabad 3. The Dep uty Commrssioner of police, Cyberabad police Commissionerate, Gachibo wli, Hyderabad 4. The Stat ion House Officer, Madha pur Police Station Madhapur, H yderabad 5. Two CC s to GP FOR HOME , High Court for the Sta te of Telangan aat Hydera bad. [OUrl One C C to SRt SRINIVAS MANTHA , Advocate toPUCl One CC to SRI [/OHD MoIN AHIVIE D QUADRI , Advocate (oPUC) One CC to SRI L,PREETHAI/ RED DY, Advoca re (oPuc) One CC to SRt P.SRI HARSHA RE DDY, Advocate (OPUC) One CC to SRt D,GNANESWARA NAIDU, Ad vocate (OPUC) Two CD Copies

6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11 SA GJP \s, HIGH CC)URT DATED:'1910912025 i:! -i.. ,, t-' il ._.,..:.1,i:.: ._- ": ' -- ,'...\' "r\Y'v ,'; -, J' Nb i.'j nq($\ trr,) U' \\.;. ''..,i.ii ;r<,? \ i-:-!: : -. ORDER WP.No.3594 of 2023 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. @{ ...'-l 1 \0\v(