1. Bathini Rambabu v. 1. The State of Telangana

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 MANSAMUS declaring the action- of the Respondent No.3 in interfering with the civil disputes and asking to petitioners to vacate from their house no.5-150 an extent of 266 Sq yards situated at Ponugodu village, Garidepally Mandal, Suryapet District and to hand over said premises to the 4th respondent while pending suit between the petitioners and 4th respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Fundamental Rights such as Article 1 4, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents No. 2 and 3 not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners property i.e. House bearing No.5-150, an extent of 266 Sq yards situated at Ponugodu village, Garidepally Mandal, Suryapet District. 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 to direct the Respondents No. 2 and 3 not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioners property i.e. House bearing No.5-150, an extent of 266 Sq yards situated at Ponugodu village, Garidepally Mandal, Suryapet District pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. VENKATARAMANAIAH Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 3: SRI G. ANIKETH REDDY, ASST. GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - - - - The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE T, VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No. 9099 of 2025 ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.l to 3, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage and the nature of /s involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.4 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is that there arc inter secivil disputes between the petitioners and the 4h respondent, which are subject matter of suit, vide O.S.No.347 of 2024, lwherein the 4h respondent had obtained an order of injunction against the petitioners in relation to the subject property and with.the help of the respondents-authorities, in particular the 3'd respondent, they are intefering with the civil disputes to get the petitioners vacated from the suit schedule property i.e. house, which action of the respondents it is contended is highly illegal, arbitrary and without sanction of law. 2 4, Per contm, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the 4th respondent had approached the 3'd respondent and lodged a complaint on

74.03.2025 against the petitioners herein; that on.the aforesaid complaint being lodged, the authorities have made a GD entry and cauied preliminary enquiry; and that having found that the subject dispute is civil dispute, the authorities have advised the 4h respondent to approach the concerned Court and obtain an order of police aid for implementation of the injunction order, and as such, the authorities would be of no help to the 4th respondent.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would further submlt that informing the 4th respondent of the action taken, the authorities have closed the complaint on 24.03.2025 and a copy of the said notice of closure of the complaint lodged by the 4m respondent has also been issued to her; and that except causing preliminary enquiry into the aforesaid complaint, the authorities are not interfering in any civil dispute r between the petitioners and the 4th respondent, more particularly, in the absence of any order from the concerned Couft to provide police aid for lmplementation of the injunction order.

6. The aforesaid submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is taken on record. I I i 3

7. Having regard to the submissions made as above, since the respondents-authorities claim of the 4th respondent lodging a complaint on

14.03.2025 and the said complaint being closed on 24.03.2025, this Court is of the view that the respondents-authorities are to be directed not to interfere in civil disputes unless and untll an order is passed by the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction directing the authorities to provide necessary police aid for implementation of the injunction order.

8. Subject to above observation and direction, the Writ Petition ls disposed of. No order as to costs.

9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. \ //TRUE COPY/I SDI.P.PADMA DEPU NABHA TY REG DOY SECTION OFFICER ,1ffi'#Hls*liiji"+rli*iffiffi;#;{ffi ",, BN LS t\b "\ HIGH COURT DATED:2610312025 I I ORDER WP.No.9099 of 2025 f- A5T T €' 1 ( 03 APfl 2[6 o t a S o( T c DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @ori' %- a\q\4-