Ramavath Kavitha v. The State of Telangana

14. Mr. Syed Mohamrned Aslam, S/o Late Syed Mohammed Ali, A(ted 58 years, Occ. Business, Rl/: H.No.10-3-296, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad

15.Mr. Razwan Shzrik, S/o Shaik Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years, Occ. Business, Flto flat No.204, R/o H.No.10-2-37, Nest Dolphin Apa'tment, Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad. ...RE$PONDENTS ' Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia prayinr; that in the circumstances stated irr the affidavit filed therewith, the High Qourt may be pleased to issue an ordr:r or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring tho action of the respondent Nos.s and 6 in no r-ihitiating to provide protection to ther petitioner life and liberty as well as prot':lction to the petitioner's house propr:r1y to an extent of 122.22 S,9. yards in F'lot No.34 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 2411 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Na1lar (Nareddy Hari Kishan Reddy \/enture), Kammaguda Village, under Ttrrkay arnlalzal Municipality, Abdulalpurnret Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and no'r-initiating to protect the petitioner frotn the illegal activities of the respondent N,>s.7 to 15 is highly illegal, arbitrary irrtd violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles, ',1, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution oI India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.S and 6 to provide prok;'ction to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's hous3 property to an extent of 122.22 [;,q. yards in Plot No.34 in Sy.No.240, 2,11 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Nareddy Hari Kishan Reddy Venture), Kammaguda \i llage, under Turkayamjalzal Municipality, Alldulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Etistrict, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Se,;tion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstan,:es stated in the affidavit filed in suppcrt of the petition, the High Court may be plee sed to direct the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to control the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15, who are creating the panic situation in respect of venture of Nareddy Hari Kishan Reddy Venture admeasuring to an extent of 122.22 Sq. yards in PIot No.34 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar' Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjalzal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and to provide protection to the-petitioner life and liberty as well as. protection to the petitione/s house property to an extent of 122.22 Sq. yards pending disposal of the writ petition. 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 respondent Nos.S and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's house property to an extent of 122.22 Sq. yards in Plot No.34 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Nareddy Hari Kishan Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjalzal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel forthe Respondents No.1to6: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.7to15: W.P.No.10268 OF 2025 Between: Smt. Likki Geethavani, Wo L. Venkat Reddy, aged aboul 42 years, Oc-q- Housewife, -Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet nio ptot No.20, Sivaji Nagar, Kammaguda, Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. AND 1 2 3 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad The Director General of Police, Telagnana State, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Hyderabad' ...PETITIONER

4. The Deputy Conrmissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commiss onerate, L.B. Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District

5. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram Circle Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District.

6. The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate.

7. Gundla Rajammil, Wo Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ- Household,'Rl/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Talfk, Ranga Reddy District. B, Gundla Yadamna, D/o Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ- Household, Rl/o Uppal Village, hayathnagarTaluk, Ranga Reddy District. 9. Smt. Balamani, V//o Rangaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ- Hrtusehold, Rl/o Uppal Village, hal,athnagarTaluk, Ranga Reddy District. l0.BabyAnusha, D/o Late G. Padma, aged about I years, Occ- [\'linor, Rep. by her next friend grand mother Petitioner No.1

11.Soma Shivashan<er, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 22 years, Oc<, Household, R/o Uppal Village Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District.

12.Soma Sabitha, E/o G. Yadamma, Aged about 25 years, H.l,lo.4-245, No Hanmapur Village, Bhongiri Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District.

13. Alla Rama Kirshrra, S/o Late Alla Sambaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ- Retired Employee, Rl/o Villa NO.42, Cyber Meadows, Masjid Banda, Near Vijetha Super Mark.et, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy )istrict.

14.Mr. Syed Mohamrned Aslam, S/o Late Syed Mohammed Ali, At,ed 58 years, Occ- Business, Rro H.No.10-3-296, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabac.

15. Mr. Razwan Shzrik, S/o Shaik Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years, Occ- Business, R/o flat No.204, R/o H.No.10-2-37, Nest Dolphin Apartment, Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Crurt may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the r ature of Writ of Mandamus dFclaring the action of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in non-initiating to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as prolection to the petitioners plot property 1:o an extent of 225 Sq. yards in PIot No.20 n Sy.No.240 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Srisailam anct Pochaiah), Kammaguda Village, u nder Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpur net Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, :rnd non-initiating to protect the petitioner frcm the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15, who are engaged the unsor:ial elements and creating panic situ:rtions, by having the deadly weapons and tl reatening to dispossess the petitiorrer from his house property during the pendency of partitio n suit and trying to vacate the petitioner from his house is highly illegal f arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation o Articles, 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of Indi a and conseq uently direct the respondent Nos 5 and 6 to provide protection to the petitiondr life and libertY -:- as well as protection to the petitioners plot property to an extent of 225 Sq' Yards in Plot No.20 in Sy'No 240 respectively which !s' situated at Shivaji Nagar (Srisailam and Pochaiah)' Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality' AbdulalPurmet Mandal, Ranga ReddY Distri ct, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos T to 15 IA NO: 20F 202s 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 respondent Nos'S and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner,s plot property to an extent of 225 Sq. yards in Plot No'20 in Sy'No'240 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Srisailam & Pochaiah)' Kammaguda Village' under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal' Ranga Reddy District' to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos'7 to 15 pending disposal of the writ Petition' IANO: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 respondent Nos'5 and 6 to control the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15, who are creating the panic situation in respect of venture of "srisailam & Pochaiah" admeasuring to an extent of 225 Sq yards in Plot No.20 in Sy No'240 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamj al Municipality' Abdulalpurmet Mandal' Ranga Reddy District; and to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioners plot property to an extent of 225 Sq' yards pending disposal of the writ petition' ]"la0ar' Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1to6: GP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondents No.7to15: - W.P.No.l0307 OF 2025 Between: Ambotu Shankar, S/o Branu Naik aged about 33 yea6, Occ- Private [':mplo1ee, Rl/o House / Plot No.83, Sivaji Nagar, Kammaguda, Turkayamjal Village, '\bdullapurmet Mandal; Ranga Reddy []istrict. ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home [ )epartment, Secretariat Buildi rg, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Director General of Police, Telagnana State, Hyderabad. The Commissionr:' of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ht,'derabad. 3 4. The Deputy Com rissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissione'rate, L.B. Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District.

5. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram Circle, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District.

6. The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Racrakonda Commissionerate.

7. Gundla Rajamma, Wio Gundla Jangaiah, Agjd abo_ut 62 years, 3_cc. , Household, Rr/o Llppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Redd'.' District.. B. Gundla Yadammil D/o Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Household, p7e ltppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddt,' District. 9. Smt. Balamani, V1/r'o Rangaiah, Aged about 4'l yearc, Occ. Household, Rl/o Uppal Village, ha:lathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District.

10.Baby Anusha; Dio Late G. Padma, aged about 9 years, Occ. Mirror, Rep. by her next friend gr;rnd mother Petitioner No.1

11.Soma Shivashanl<er, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 22 years, Occ. Hcusehold, Rl/o Uppal Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District.

12.Soma Sabitha, t)/o G. Yadamma, Aged about 25 years, l{.[r,le.zt-245, Rl/o Hanmapur Villager, Bhongiri Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District.

13.Alla Rama Kirshna, S/o Late Alla Sambaiah, Aged about 64 yea"s, Occ. Retired Employeer, Rl/o Villa NO.42, Cyber Meadows, Masjid Bartda, Near Vijetha Super Ma'ket, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.

14.Mr. Syed Mohamrned Aslam, S/o Late Syed Mohammed Ali, Aged 58 years, Occ. Business, R'o H.No.10-3-296, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabat:.

15. Mr. Razwan Shail<. S/o Shaik Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years, 3cc. Business, Rl/o flat No.204, R/o H.No.10-2-37, Nest Dolphin Apailment, Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS pleasedtoissueanorderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinth.enatureofWrit Petition under Article 226 oI the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in non-initiating to provide protection to the petitioner life and libe4yas well as protection to the petitioner s plot property to an extent of 204 Sq' yards in House / Plot No'83 in Sy.No.240, 241 and242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy'Venture)' Kammaguda Village' under Turkayamial Municipality, Abdulalpurmet t"itanOat' Ranga Reddy District' and nbn-initiating to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos'7 to 15 is highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles' 1t4' 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and Nos'5 and 6 to provide protection to the consequently direct the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner s plot property to an extent of 204 Sq yards in House / Plot No 83 in Sy'No'240' 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at shivaji .Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture)' Ku*rnug'Ou Village' under Turkayamial Municipality' Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reooy District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos'7 to 1 5' '"tpond"nt IANo"2 OF 2025 ing that in the circumstances stated Petition under Section 151 CPC pray the High Court may be Pleased to in the affidavit filqd in support of the petition' rotection to the petitioner life and direct the respondent Nos'S and 6 to provide p lot ProPertY to an extent of 204 libertY as well as protection to the petitioner's p 1 and 242 resPectivelY which ls Sq. Yard s in House / Plot No'83 in Sy'No 240' 24 d Ramesh ReddY Venture)' (Sridhar ReddY an situated ai Kammaguda Village' under TurkaYamlal MuniciP alitY, AbdulalPurmet Mandal' Ranga ReddY District' to Protect the Petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos'7 to 15 Pending disposal of the writ Petition' -shivaii Nagar IANO:1OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circums intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmay direct the responden: Nos'5 and 6 to control the illegal ab1 respondent Nos'7 to '5' who are creating the panic situation venture of "sridhar Fleddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture" adme extent. of 204 Sq yards in House / Plot No'83 in Sy No'240' respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar' Kammaguda Turkayamjal Municipality' Abdulalpurmet Mandal' Ranga Reddy I provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as pr petitioner's plot prope rty to an extent of 204 Sq yards pending writ Petition. tances stated be pleased to ivities of the in resPect of asuring to an 241 aod 242 Village, under )istrict. and to rtection to the lisposal of the Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Resp'ondents No'1to6: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No'7to15 : W.P.N o.1031 80F 2025 - Between: 'n*1ll"gfl 3ll-'ill#'["1fI;3gS:,qP;,'-:i:.{"'ilid'3:'A'::[':lHJ? y,:f Ranga ReddY District vee, R/o 'Mandal, ...PETITiONER AND

6. 7 I s ec reta ry' H c m e De pa rtm e nt' U:,.:8*:,g J fi ',?tY ?H,5SS;'0'*it.ti[,T " TheDirectorCeneralofPolice'TelagnanaState'Hyderabad The Commissioner of Police' Rachakonda Commissionerate Hyderabad' nd a comn i ssio nerate' L' B' L:"n J 3?Ji:Y" l;"flruT$st,if ,3,?,':?:' ^'"n"ko TheAssistant(]ommissionerofPolice,-VanasthalipuramCi"cle'Rachakonda C,oil;E i;;" a1e, Ransa ReddY District' TheStationHouseofficer,VanasthalipuramPolicestaton'Rachakonda Commissione'ate. 35lS:1"[:'a[t?,I{,i,',351f, :i,"itri.i"?+''fP'"S''#;Hl'&"JB?l'ko""

8. Gundla Yadamma, D/o Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ' - l{ousenoh, R/o Upial Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District' 9. Smt. Balamani, Wo Rangaiah, Aged about.41 years, Occ' Household, R/o Uppal Village, liayathnagai Taluk, Ranga Reddy District. 'l0.Baby Anusha, D/o Late G. Padma, aged about 9 years, Occ Minor, Rep' by her next friend grand mother Petitioner No.1

11.Soma Shivashanker, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about J2yea|s, Occ' Household, R/o Uppal Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District'

12.Soma Sabitha, Dio G. Yadamma, Aged about 25 y-qars, H'No'4-245, Rl/o Hanmapur Village, Bhongiri Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District'

13. Alla Rama Kirshna, S/o Late Alla Sambaiah, Aged about 64-years, .Occ' Retired Emolovee, Rl/o Villa NO.42, Cyber Meadows, Masjid Banda, Near Vileiha Super Madiet, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District' 'l4.Mr. Sved Mohammed Aslam, S/o Late Syed lVlohammed Ali, Aged 58 years' Occ. 6usiness, R/o H.No.10-3-296, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad'

15.Mr. Raarvan Shaik, S/o Shaik Moulana Sharee! Aged -43 .years,-Occ' - ausineii, nyo nat ruir.ZOa, R/o H'No.10-2-37, Nest Dolphin Apartment, Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in non-initiating to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioners house property to an extent of 204 Sq yards in Plot No'4 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respeclively which is situated at shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Rames! Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamzal Municipality, Abdulatpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and non-initiating to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 is highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of A,rticles, 14,21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent Nos.S and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's house property to an extent of 204 Sq. yards in in Plot No.4 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamzal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the r espondent Nos'7 to 1 5' IANO:1O F 2025 Petition under Siection 151 CPC praying that in the circum:';tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, tne Hilh court may be pleased to direct the respondent Nos'5 and 6 to control the illegal ac ivities bf the respondent Nos.7 to 15, who are creating the panic situation in respect of venture of "sridhar Fleddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture" adme'asuring to an extent of 204 Sq. ya'cls in Plot No'4 in Sy'No'240' 241 and 212 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village' unde' Turkayamzal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District aT d to provide protectiontothepetitionerlifeandlibertyaswellasprotectiontothepetitioner,S house property to arl extent of 204 Sq' yards pending dispo:;al, of the writ petition. IA NO :2OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circun'stances stated in the affidavit filed irr support of the petition' the High Courl mar" be pleased to direct the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's house property to an extent of 204 Sq. yards in Plot No.4 in Sy.No'240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Slidhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture)' Kammaguda Village, under Turka yamzal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal Ranga Reddy District,toprotectthe.petitionerfromtheillegalactivitiesoftherel;pondentNos'7 to 1 5 pending dispos al of the writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Res;:ondents No'lto6: GP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondents No'7tol5: - The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRT ]USTTCE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ P os. 10268, 10307 and 10318 of 2025 coM MON ORDER: Since the grievance of the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6 in all these Writ Petitions, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing For the parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

3. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petitions at the admission stage and the nature of /s involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 15 in all the Writ Petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions'

4. The case of the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions, in brief, is that they are the bona fide purchasers of the subject plots/land situated at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village, Turkayamjalzal Municipality, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from their previous vendors, obtained permissions from the concerned GHMC, made constructions and are living therein. 2

5. It is the further case oF the petitioners that th( unofficial respondents here,ir are now claiming the subject land by virtue of the final decree dt.09.09.,1,124 passed in O.S.No.361 of .1984 by the J Additionat Senior Civil Judgr: Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, which u,as filed by the unofficial resJlrtndents herein for partition of the subject prc,perty; that though the suit vvas pending at the time when the petitioners purchased the subject plots they were not made parties to the aforesai,J suit, nor informed of the p,snflsncy of the said suiu and thus, being, bona fide purchasers, they are to be protected from interference being caused by the unofficial respondents herein, who are seeking to dispossess them from their respective plots.

6. Petitioners fufther contend that since, the unofficial re spondents are seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land they had approached the respondents-authorities by submitting representations seeking for policr: protection to their life and liberty ancJ als,) to their property, and .in spite of the petitioners approaching respondents- authorities. the rr::;pondents-authorities are not extending thr required protection, which action of the respondents-authorities it is conr:ended as highly illegal and erbitrary.

7. Per contra, learned Government pleader for Home app :aring on behalf of respond()nt Nos.1 to 6 would submit that the petitior,ers claim themselves:to be thg pr,a6.sers of the suit schedule propery, which / 3 origlnally belong to Kosika Pentaiah and 10 others, represented by their Power of Attorney Holders, who sold the subject plots to various people by executing registered sale deeds, even though the subject propety was subject matter of suit, videO.S.No.361 of 1984. B. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the petitioners had purchased the subject property during the pendency of the proceedings before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, vide O.S.No.361 of t984, which is ended in favour of the unofficial respondents herein.

9. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since the petitioners are pendente lite purchasers from the persons claiming themselves to be the owners of the suit schedule property, petitioners cannot claim any better title than the one enjoyed by their vendors.

10. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since, the unofficial respondents herein have succeeded in the suit, the request of the petitioners foi being provided with police protection to their life and liberty as well as to their property cannot be considered by the authorities.

11. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the decree passed by the concerned Civil Court, in respect of the suit schedule property, yriCe O.S.No.361 of 1984, they have to avail civil remedies provided under law and cannot approach 4 the respondent:;authorities seeking police aid, without talring further action in assailing the said judgment and decree. !2 I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

13. Though tl'€) petitioners craim themserves to be bona fide purchasers of the subject lands from their vendors and are not being paties to the suit, it is to be n,rted that the original owner of the suit schedL le property was a party to the suit, videO.S.No.361 of 1984 and the said p,trty having sold the subject gl.operty during the pendenry of the suit, the same wourd be covered by drctrine of lis pendens provided under Sectior 52 ofthe Transfer of Proper'y Act, 1882.

14. Further, ttrr: petitioners, who claim themselves tct be bona frde purchasers of suriect plots/land, are required to assail the final decree dt.09.09.20?-4, if they are aggrieved by the said decree pass,:d against their vendor's vendor.

15. Since, it.is not shown to this Court of the petitioners iaking any steps to assail th. judgment and decree dt.Og.Og.2O24, in O.S.No.361 of 1984, this court is of the view that the petitioners cannot approach the respondents-authcrrities and seek for police protection to themse,lves or to their property, thereby, frustrating the decree obtained by the ;uccessful party to the civil suit, rzdeO.S.No.361 of 19g4. 5 /

16. Further, it is also to be noted that if the petitioners claim oF themselves not being aware of pending litigation and thus being bona fide purchasers, they are required to initiate action against their vendor and vendor's vendor, since, the sale deeds, under which the subject property has been purchased by them, provide for indemnity, in the event of any defect in title.

17. For the above reason, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should be relegated to avail the civil remedies, against the judgment and decree dt.09.09.2024 in O.S.No.361 of 1984, instead of approaching the respondents-authorities and seeking for police protection, as noted above.

18. Subject to above observation, the Writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.

19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. sb-k.sneenlMA MURTHY UTY REGISTRAR D //TRUE COPY//

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department' Secreta ' Siale ofTdlangana, HYderabad' ECTION OFFICER nat Building, Secretariat,

2. The Director General of Police, Telagnana State' Hyderabad' 3. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate' Hyderabad' 4 The Deoutv Commissioner of Po.lice, Rachakonda Commissionerate' L B' ' r'figaiDivision, Ranga Reddy District' 5 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram Circle, Rachakonda " Co*miJsionerate, Ranga Reddy District' 6.TheStationHouseOfficer,VanasthalipuramPoliceStation'Rachakonda Commissionerate.

7. One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate lOPUCl 8.TwoCCstoGPFoRHoME,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana.[oUT] 9. Two CD CoPies. \ To, *P HIGH COURT DATED:0710412025 COMMON ORDER WP.No.10243, 10268, 10307 & 10318 o12025 ( t) o 1 ;'t E S;14 I 2 4 APB 2[[ 7 o * * lF.l l cf DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS w" W