Shankar Reddy R.S v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition Under Section '1 51 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 respondent No.4 herein to act upon the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 28-9-2016 seeking police aid to construct compound wall over his land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts situated in Sy.No.273 of Turkayamjyal Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R.District, pending disposal of the nrain writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.TULASI DAS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 4 : GP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.S to 7 : SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY The Court made the following ORDER {i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI ORDER: This \X/rit Petition is filed under Anicle 226 of C-onstitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- "... to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more panicularly one in the nature of \X/rit of lVlandamus under Anicle 226 of the C-onstitution of India directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein to extend police aid to the petitioner ro construct the boturdary wall around his land admeasuring Ac.1-00 gts. situated in Sy.No.273 of Turkayamjyal Village, Flayathnagar IMandal, Ranga Reddy District on any day as convenient for them so as to prorecr his lawful right over the schedule properry and pass... "

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3. I have heard Mr. R Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Govemmerrt Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.L to 4 and Mr. K.Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 7 .

4. Learned fusistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, as per the instructions received, no crime has been registered in relation to the present matter, nor has any competent authoriry -***-*! 2 issued directions for extending police assistance to the petitioner for the purpose of constructing a boundarywall.

5. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 5 to 7 further submits that it is a 'well-semled principle of law that any person seeking police aid in civil maners must approach the appropriate civil court for relief. In the present case, however, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Coun under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by seeking a writ of mandamus, which, it is contended, is not maintainable in such circumstances. It is furcher urged that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the factual situation has matenally changed inasmuch as the land claimed by the petitioner is no longer available, the entire property having since been converted into residential plots. Crnsequently, the grievance raised in the present petition has become infructuous and does not survive for adjudication.

6. I have pensed the materials on record. 7 The pleadings disclose that the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court to provide police aid for the construction ., 't 3 of a boundary wall around his propefty, admeasuring Ac.1.0o guntas, situated in Survey No. 273 of Turkayamjyal Village, FIrptt-agar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner has furcher pleaded that he instiruted a civil suit in o.S. No . 202 of 2o!6,wherein, in I.A No. 458 of 201.6,an ad interim injunction r ras granted in his favor, which continued to remain in force. On the strength of the said order, the petitioner approached respondent No. 4 seeking police assistance for implementation of the injunction. F{owever, such aid was declined. It is, therefore, evident that in the absence of any specific order of the civil court directing police aid, the petitioner has filed the present writ petirion under Article 226 of the C-onstitution of India, seeking protection of the property and assisrance in construcring a boundary wall around the disputed land.

8. An analogous situation came up for consideration before a coordinate Bench of this Court in \f.P. No. 8698 of 2025, wherein it was categorically observed that even rf a parrysecures a decree or an order be it ad interim or final the proper course is to approach the couft concemed for enforcement of such order by filing an 4 appropriate application seeking police aid. A writ petition under .r' Anicle 226 of the C-onstitution cannot be invoked as a substitute for such procedure. The principle laid down therein squarely applies to the presenr case. The petitioner, without taking necessary recource before the competent civil court for enforcement of the injunction and for obtaining requisite police protection, has directly approached r.his Court. Such a course of action is procedurally improper and legally unsustainable.

9. Accordingly, no merit is found in this petition and in effect this petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as ro cosrs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending rf any,shall stand closed. 4 't. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at /TRUE COPY// To SECTION OFFICER SD/. C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. One CC to SRI S.TULASI DAS, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies SA TKS Prtc,. HIGH COURT DATED:19/0 12025 o r-l WP.No.34151 of 2016 DISMISSING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS ?$(". 29\ to \rg EHTRoe l4 o O t o 't * Vilo \.\ !.CHED *