Battamekala Srinu v. The State of Telangana

15. Mr. Razwan Shaik, Sio Shaik Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years, Occ Business, Rl/o flat No.204, 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 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.S and 6 in non-initiating to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's plot property to an extent of 129 Sq. yards in Plot No.2B (Northern Part) in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Gundla Srisailam and Pochaiah Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamj al Municipality, Abdulalpurmet 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 Articles, 14,21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent Nos.5 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 129 Sq. yards in Plot No.28 (Northern Part) in Sy.No.240,241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Gundla Srisailam and Pochaiah Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamj al Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to

15. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 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 "Gundla Srisailam & Pochaiah Venture" admeasuring to an extent of 129 Sq. " Y, v__yr ------ yards in Plot No.2B (Northern Part) in Sy.No.240, 241 & 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's plot property to an extent of 129 Sq. yards pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 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 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 129 Sq. yards in Plot No.28 (Northern Part) in Sy.No.240, 241 & 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Gundla Srisailam & Pochaiah Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamj al 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 for the Respondents No.1to6 : GP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondents No.7to15: - W.P.No.10468 OF 2025 Between: Mutyala Rameswaramma, W/o M. Ram Reddy, aged about 45 years, Occ. Housewife, R:./o Plot No.67 and 68, Sivaji Nagar, Kammaguda, Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 3 4 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: The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, L.B. Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District. ----r--a

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

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

7. Gundla Rajamma, Wo Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District. 8. Gundla Yadamma, D/o Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Household, R:/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District. 9. Smt. Balamani, W/o Rangaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District.

10.Baby Anusha, Dio Late G. Padma, aged about 9 years, Occ. Minor, Rep. by her next friend grand mother Petitioner No.1 1 1 . Soma Shivashanker, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 22 yearc, Occ. Household, Rl/o Uppal Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District.

12.Soma Sabitha, D/o G. Yadamma, Aged about 25 years, H.No.4-245, No Hanmapur Village, Bhongiri Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District. 1 3. Alla Rama Kirshna, S/o Late Alla Sambaiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Retired Employee, Ri/o Villa NO.42, Cyber Meadows, tt/asjid Banda, Near Vijetha Super Market, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.

14.Mr. Syed Mohammed Aslam, S/o Late Syed Mohammed Ali, Aged 58 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No.10-3-296, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. 1 5. Mr. Razwan Shaik, S/o Shaik Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o flat No.204, Fl/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 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 petitioner's plot property to an extent of 408 Sq. yards in Plot No.67 and 68 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet 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 Articles, 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 plot property to an extent of 408 Sq. yards in Plot No.67 and 68 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), 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. lA NO: 2 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 plot property to an extent of 408 Sq. yards in Plot No.67 and 68 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), 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. 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.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 "sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture" admeasuring to an extent of 408 Sq. yards in Plot No.67 and 68 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's plot property to an extent of 408 Sq. yards pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1to6 : GP FOR HOME Gounsel for the Respondents No.7to15 : The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER - -r- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition Nos. 10464 and 1O468 of 2025 COMMON ORDER Since, the lis involved in thcse Writ Petitions is one and the same, thcy arc being Laken up for hearing dnd disposal by this common order.

2. Heard lcarned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Plcader for Home appearing for respondent No.6, ancl u ith the conscnt o[ lhe leamcd counsel appearing for the parties, both thc Writ I)cLitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at thc ardmission stagc.

3. IJaving regard to the nature of lis involved in the Writ f'etiLior-rs ar-rd thc lranner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 15 is not necessary for adjudication ol-thc prcsent Writ l)etitions.

4. Whcn Lhc mir.tters are taken up lor hearing, Iearned counsel ior the petitioners and learr-red Gcvernment Pleader for Home appearing for the respective respondents, in both the writ petitions, submit that thc issuc involved in these Writ Petitions is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in WP.No.1O243 of 2025, d1.O7.O4.2O25, and the said order would apply in al1 force to the lacts of lhe prcscnt cases. 2

5. Recording the same, for reasons alike as were stated in the Writ Petition, uide W.p.No.10243 of 2025, dL.OZ.O4.2O2S, and in terms thercof, the present Writ petitions are also disposcd of. No order as to costs.

6. Registry is directed to append a copy of the order passed in W.P.No. 10243 of 2025, dL.OT.O4.2O2S, to this order.

7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pencling shall stand closed /ffRUE COPY// SD.K. SREERAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTTON OFFICER 1 The Principal Secretary, Home Department' Secretariat Building' Secretariat' Siale of tetangana, HYderabad' The Director General of Police, Telagnana State' Hyderabad' The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate' Hyderabad' Rachakonda Commissionerate, L'B The Deoutv Commissioner of Police' r.ragrr f5iri6ion, Ranga Reddy District I:"#:L::1T,:,"J[lii?3Elsil3"s'?iYanastharipuramcircre'Rachakonda The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station' One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR' Advocate' [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT] Two CD CoPies (Along with a coPY of the Order, to this Order) dated 07-04-2025 in W.P No'10243 oI2025 2 3 4 5 6 7 B I \ To, BSK LS t+( IG HIGH COURT DATED:0810412025 COMMON ORDER WP.No.10464 & 10408 ot 2025 1HE Sla, c ( ( 30 Aril 2ir25 A .-\ .::r)/.rcr -\.\_=,,-..,- DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS 2L\ :x THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition Nos.10243. 10258. 10307 and 10318 ot 2O25 COMMON 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 pafties, 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 rrc 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 6ona r/de 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 -- Yr

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that the unofficial respondents herein are now claiming the subject land by virtue of the final decree dt.09.09.2024 passed in O.S.No.361 of 1984 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, which was filed by the unofficial respondents herein for partition of the subject property; that though the suit was pending at the time when the petitioners purchased the subject plots, they were not made pafties to the aforesaid suit, nor informed of the pendency of the said suit; and thus, being, 6ooa de purchasers, they are to be protected from inteference being caused by the unofficial respondents herein, who are seeking to dispossess them from their respective plots.

6. Petitioners further contend that since, the unofficial respondents are seeking to dispossess the petitioners from the subject land, they had approached the respondents-authorities by submitting representations seeking for police protection to their life and liberty and also to their property, and in spite of the petitioners approaching respondents- authorities, the respondents-authorities are not extending the required protection, which action of the respondents-authorities it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

7. pet contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6 would submit that the petitioners claim themselves to be the purchasers of the suit schedule property, which 3 originally belong to Kosika Pentaiah and 10 others, represented by their ! I Power of Attorney Holders, who sold the subject plots to various people by executing registered sale deeds, even though the subject property was subject matter of suit, vrae O.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 1984, which is ended in favour of the unofficial respondents herein.

9. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since the petitioners dr€ psa4gals /lte purchasers from the persons Claiming themselves to be the owners of the suit schedule property, pefltioners 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 for 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, yroe O.S.No.361 of 1984, they have to avail civil remedies provided under law and cannot approach 4 the respondents-authorities seeking police aid, without taking further action in assailing the said judgment and decree.

12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

13. Though the petitioners claim themselves to be 6ona de purchasers of the subject lands from their vendors and are not being parties to the suit, it is to be noted that the original owner of the suit schedule property was a party to the suit, yioe O.S.No.361 of 1984 and the said party having sold the subject property during the pendency of the suit, the same would be covered by doctrine of ,s pende4s provided under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

14. Fufther, the petitioners, who claim themselves to be 6oaa r/de purchasers of subject plots/land, are required to assail the final decree dt.09.09.2024, if they are aggrieved by the said decree passed against their vendor's vendor.

15. Since, it is not shown to this Court of the petitioners taking any steps to assail the judgment and decree dt.09.09.2024, in O.S.No.361 of 1984, this Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot approach the respondents-authorities and seek for police protection to themselves or to their property, thereby, frustrating the decree obtained by the successful party to the civil srJit, r,roe O.S.No.361 of 1984. I I I i I I i 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 6ona rroe 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.

77. 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 petltions shall stand closed. Date:07.04.2025 GJ T. VINOD KUMA& J 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition Nos.1O243. 10268, 10307 and 1O318 of 2025

07.o4.202s GJ