Smt. Challa Shahikala v. 1. The State of Telangana

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

15.Mr. Razwan Shaik, Sio Shaik Moulana Sh5ieef, Aged 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o flat No.204, Rl/o H.No.10-2-37, Nest Dolphin Apartment,'Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad .,.RESPONDENTS 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of [\ilandamus 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 'Sy.No.240, petitioners plot property to an extent of 204 Sq. yards in Plot No.52 in 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal tvlunicipality, 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 petitioners plot property to an extent of 204 Sq. yards in Plot No.52 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectivelywhich 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. IA NO: 'f 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 204 q. yards in Plot No.52 in Sy.No.240, 241 & 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet [\rlandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 pending disposal of the writ petition. !A 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.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 204 Sq. yards in Plot No.52 in Sy.No.240, 241 &242 respectively which is 'situated at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and io provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's plot property to an extent of 204 Sq. yards pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME WRIT PETITION NO: 10727 OF 2025 Between: T. Govardhan Reddy, S/o T. Hanumanth Reddy, aged about 46 years, Occ- Business, Fl/o Plot No.84 and 85, Sivaji Nagar, Kammaguda, Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretari-at-Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad The Director General of Police, Telagnana State, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Hyderabad. 3 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, L.B. Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District.

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

6. The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram police Station, Rachakonda 7. Gundla Raiamma. Wo Grrnr a tonaa;-h A ^ i";;;i"i,j,fi ,;i j?p,iffi h35,"hd:i,1#i"%1??,,f,?"H,,i'f H,"r%r,years,occ- ' SJxSl?."[:fliTUE;,p,1?,,gJ, ,lji,",r^:*%*],,f,l1,"f,"H,"oloo, J3if;"i o*- 9. Smt. Balamani. Wo Rangaiah,.Aged about 41 ygars, Occ_ Household, Rlio Uppat Vilase, nayatrnasa"rlii,j(, ffi #HAey B,.tri.,. '10. Baby Anusha, D/o Late G. partm: 2rra.{ -}r^,,+ rr her next rrieno srand-m;3;lftifft,frt"?fl ft31r" ' vears, occ- Minor, Rep. bv ""- H o u s e h o,d, g.\".+zas,' ivo'"'rilnr"pri-'virrlg"l a'n?iiji'ri',,i;rf$Sfl *oorj.fi#o.ifi1 " RiJljfS' \i l,X6:lA.;,:{; l2.Soma.Sabitha Soma Sabitha, D/o G. yadamn "Y#fl I ; fl ',i*Al"-ffi? il?$ii;, o "Al?'sr?.J5Jl*:r}"xEii.1:i,ry"3ji'tr;,f, :H,i'g[1ffi ;s*; '03:"_'63,9".31Hfl ?fl ,f"oiilag&:ftf,'J,i,."K:!:[ffi 5#,Aged58years, .'yJ"i[$ilj1"",ilf h3J?8rh,u:il1,i,:?,T3,"3"flfl ?,.^l:_f#i,,?ff ; ...RESPONDENTS petition under Articre 226 0t the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decraring the action of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in non-initiating to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as we, as protection to the petitioners prot property to an extent of 520 Sq. yards in prot No.B4 and 85 in sy No'240' 241 and 242 respectivery which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Gundra Srisailam and pochaiah Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamj al Municiparity' Abdurarpurmet Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, and non-initiating to protect the petitioner from the iregar activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 is highly illegar, arbitrary and vioration of principres of Naturar Justice and arso in violation of Articles, 14,21 and 300_4 of the Constitution of lndia and consequenty direct the respondent Nos.S and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner rife and riberty as we, as protection to the petitioners prot property to nextent of 520 Sq. yards in Plot No.84 and 85 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Gundla Srisailam and Poihaiah Venture), Kammaguda Vil.lage, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 't 5. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'l 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 "Gundla Srisailam & Pochaiah Venture" admeasuring to an extent of 520 Sq. yards in Plot No.84 & 85 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 proteciion to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioners plot property to an extent of 520 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 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 pldt property to an extent of 520 Sq. yards in Plot Nb.84 & 85 in Sy.No.240, 241 & 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Gundla Srisailam & Pochaiah 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. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME IT PETITION NO: 10730 OF 2025 Between: Gelli Varalakshmi, W/o Srinivasa Rao, aged about 43 years, Occ. Housewife, R:/o Plot No.3B, Siyaji Nagar, Kammaguda, Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER

2. The Director General of Police, Telagnana State, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Hyderabad. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, 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 Rajamma, Wo Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Household, R/o Uppal Village, hayathnagarTaluk, Ranga Reddy District. 8. Gundla Yadamma, D/o Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o Uppal Village, hayathnagarTaluk-, Ranga Reddy District. 9. Smt. Balamani, Wo Rangaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Household, Rt/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District.

10.Baby Anusha, D/o Late G. Padma, aged about 9 years, Occ. Minor, Rep. by her next friend grand mother Petitionei No.1

11.9oma Shivashanker, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 22 years, 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, Yddadri-Bhongiri'District.

13.Alla Rama Kirshna, S/o Late Alla Sambaiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Retired Employee, Rl/o Villa NO.42, Cyber Meailows, Masjid B'anda, Near Vijetha Super Market, Kondapur, Serilingjampally, Ranga RediJy District-

14.Mr. Syed Mohammed Aslam, S/o Late Syed Mohammed Ali, Aqed 58 vears. Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 10-3-296, Humayun Nagar, Hydera6adl

15.Mr. Razwan Shaik, S/o Shaik Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years, Occ. Business, Rt/o flat No.204, R/o H.No.10-2-37, Nest Dolphin Apartinent, Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad. 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 ...RESPONDENTS Ieased 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 204 Sq. yards in Plot No.3B in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), Kammaguda i/illage, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and non-initiatihg 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 204 Sq. yards in Plot No.3B 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, Abdulalpurmei 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 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 provide protection to the petitioner life and Iiberty as well as protection to the petitioner's plot property to an extent of 204 Sq. yards in Plot No.38 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: 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.5 and 6 to control the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15, who are creating the panic situation in respect of i I I IIi E venture of "Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture" admeasuring to an extent of 204 Sq. yards in Plot No.3 B 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 204 Sq. yards pending dlsposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME WRIT PETITION NO: 10767 OF 2025 Between: Smt. Madduri Punyavathi, Wo Narayana, aged about 30 years, Occ. Housewife, Rio Plot No55, Sivaji Nagar, Kammaguda, Turkayamlal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District AND 1 The State oJ Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER The Director General of Potice, Telagnana State, Hyderabad. 2 3. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Hyderabad. 4. T.he Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, 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 Commissioner'ate.

7. Gundla Rajamma, Wo Gundla Jangaiah, Aqed about 62 vears. Occ. Household, R/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Talu( Ranga Reddy 6istrici. 8. Gundla Yadamma, D/o, Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk-, Ranga Reddy 6istriit. 9. Smt. .Qq!9min!, W/o Rangaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Household, Rio Uppal Village, hayathnagai Tatuk, Ranga Reddy district. 'l0.Baby Anusha, D/o Late 9. pqdfg,aged about 9 years, Occ. Minor, Rep. by her next friend grand mother Petitionei No.1

11.9oma thivashanker, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 22 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o Uppal Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ringa Reddy District.

12.9oma Sabitha., D/o G. Yadamma, Aged about 25 years, H.No.4-245, No Hanmapur Village, Bhongiri Mandal, yaidadri-Bhongiri bistrict. t3.Alla Rama Kirshna, S/o. Late Alla Sambaiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Retired Employee, FL/o Villa NO.42, Cyber Meadows, lt/asjid Banda, Near Vijetha Super Market, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.'

14.Mr. Syed Mohammed Aslarh, S/o Late Syed Mohammed Ali, Aged 58 years, Occ. Business, Rio H.No.10-3-296, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad.

15.Mr. Razwan Shaik, S/o Shaik Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years, Occ. Business, Rio flat No.204, Rio H.No.10-2-37, Nest Dolphin Apartment, Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 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 244.44 Sq. yards in Plot No.55 and admeasuring 244.44 in Plot No.64, totaling admeasuring 488.88 Sq. yards in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 rcspectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Hari Kishan Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurniet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and non-initiating to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to '1 5, who are engaged the unsocial elements and creating panic situations, by having the deadly weapons and threatening to dispossess the petitioner from his house property during the pendency of partition suit and trying to vacate the petitioner from his house 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 244.44 Sq. yards in Plot No.55 and admeasuring 244.44 in Plot No.64, totaling admeasuring 488.88 Sq. yards in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Hari Kishan 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. IA Noz 1 OF 2O25 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 d.irect 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 "Hari Kishan Reddy Venture" admeasuring to an extent of 244.44 Sq. yards in Plot No.55 and admeasuring 244.44 in Plot No.64, totaling admeasuring 488.88 Sq. yards in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respeclively 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 totaling an extent of 488.88 Sq. yards pending disposal of the writ petition and 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.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 244.44 Sq. yards in Plot No.55 and admeasuring 244.44 in Plot No.64, totaling admeasuring 488.88 Sq. yards in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Hari Kishan Reddy.Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal l\ilunicipality, 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 Respondent No.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME WRIT PETITION NO: 10819 OF 202s Between: Kadari .Vijaya Lakshmi, Wo Anjaneyulu, aged about 34 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o Plot No.40 (West Part1, Sivali N5gar, Kammaguda, Tuikayam Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga' Redd! Disirici. ...PET|T|ONER AND 'l . The State of reranoana, Rep. .by. its principar secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buitdingl Secietaiiat,'f yrieraOirii-'

2. The Director General of police, Telagnana State, Hyderabad. 3. The commissioner of porice, Rachakonda commissionerate, Hyderabad. 4. The Deputy commissioner. of police, Rachakonda commissionerate, L.B. Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District. uommtsstonerate. Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy Distriit.

5. The Assistant commissioler o.f porice, vanastharipuram circre, Rachakonda 6 Ilg _9lr]!"n House Officer, Vanasthalipuram police Station, Rachakonda 7. Gundla Rajgrmma, Wo Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Househotd, Rl/o Uppat Viilage, hayathnigiiiatuk", Ranga R;ddy di;iill. - 8. Gundla Yad_amma, D/o Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Househotd, R/o UppatVilase, hayathnigaiTarutl Cang;RLd;i disiili. - I P,ll.,Qqlprani, Wio Rangaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Househotd. RIo Uppat Viilage, hayathnagai Tatuk, Ranga RedOv 6isiiiii.

10.Baby Anusha, D/o Late G. padma, aged about g years, Occ. Minor, Rep. by her next friend grand mother ResponO"eni flo. 7 1 'l . s.oma S.hivashanker, S/o Mailaiah, Aged about 22 years, occ. Househord, Rl/o Uppal Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, R5nga ReOOV Oistrict.

12.S.oma Sabitha, D/o G. yadamma, Aged about 25 years, H.No.4_245, No Hanmapur Viilage, Bhongiri [t/andai, VSOaOri_Anongiri bistrict.

13.AIla Rama Kirshna, -S/o. .late..Alla_ Sambaiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ. R.etired Emptoyee, R/q Viila NO.42, Cybei lrriead"ow", ffiiiiiO'e'";.A*u', [J* Vijetha super Market, Kondapur, serrtin<iampaity, nangi n"otiv o-isii[i] "" 14.Mr. Syed Mohammed.Aslam, S/o Late Syed Mohammed AIi, Aged 58 years, -- ''-' Occ. Business, Ryo H.No.10-3-296, Humayun Nigar, Hyderib;a:--

15.Mr..Razwan Shaik, S/o Shaik Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o flat No.204, R:io H.No.10_2_sz, Nist Doip"nin nplrti,iii'eii* Ghat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 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 house property to an extent of 122.22 Sq. yards in plot No.40 (west I I Part) in sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectivery which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Hari Kishan Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamzal Municipality, Abdurarpurmet Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, and- non-initiating to protect the petitioner from the iflegar activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 is highly illegal, arbitrary and vioration of principres of Naturar Justice and arso in violation of Articres, 14, 21 and 300-4 of the. constitution of rndia and consequenfly direct the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner life and riberty as weil as protection to the petitioner's house property to an extent of 122.22 Sq. yards in plot No.40 (West part) in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectivery which is situated at shivaji Nagar (Hari Kishan Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamzal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the iilegar activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to contror the iregar activities of the respondent Nos'7 to 15, who are creating the panic situation in respect of venture of "Hari Kishan Reddy Venture" admeasuring to an extent of 122.22 sq. yards in Prot No.40 (west part) in sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectivery which is situated at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamzal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and to provide protection to the petitioner rife and ribbrty as we, as protection to the petitioner,s house property to an extent oI 122.22 Sq. yards pending disposal of the writ petition. IANO:2OF2 025 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondent Nos.S and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as wefl as protection to the petitioner,s house property to an extent of 122.22 Sq. yards in ptot No.40 (West part) in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectivery which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Hari Kishan Reddy venture), Kammaguda vilrage, under Turkayamzar [\runiciparity, Abdurarpurmet Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T' VINOD KUMAR 0727 1 .1 o730 LO767 and 1()819 of 2025 W.P.Nos . to662 COMMON ORDER: Sincc, the lis involvcd in thcse Writ Petitions is one and the same, they arc being taken up for hearing and disposal by this common order tleard learncd counsel for the petitioners' learned 2. Government P1e adcr 1or Home appearing for official respondents' and vrrith Lhe conscnt of the learncd counsel appearing for the partics, both thc Wnt Petitions are taken up for hearing and clisposal at the admission stage' I{aving regarcl lo the natu re of lis involved in these Writ 3. pctitions and the manner of disposal, this ccurt is .f Lhe vier'r' that notice to tlnofhcial respondents in ail the r'vril pe titions is not necessary for acljuclication of the present Writ Petitions'

1. When thc maLters are takcrL up for hearing' Iearned counsel for thc petitioners and learned Governmcnt Pleader lor HoIne appearing for the respective respondents' in all thc writ petitions' submit Lhal ihc issue invotvecl in these Writ Petitions is squarcly covcred by zr dccisiorr of this Court in WP No 10243 of 2025 ' dL.O7.O4.2A25, and the said orlcr v''ould apply in all forcc to the facts of the Present cases' I I 2

5. Recording the same, for reasons alike as were shted in the Writ Petirion, uzde W.p.No. 10243 of 2025, d,t.OT.O4.2O2S,and in terms thereof, the present Writ petitions are also disposed 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, d,t.O..O4.2025, ro this order. 7 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending sh stand closed. I \ To, //TRUE COPYII SD.K.SREERAMA URTHY ISTRAR DEPUry SECTION OFFICER ' I33J,.i'ff[i3,Tl?t1 ; Ir"#e 2. The Director General of police, Telagnana State, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Hyderabad. _ o Depa rtment, s ecreta riat B uird ins, secreta riat, vanasthalipuram circle, Rachakonda l:3,PBf#:Y"f"#ruT,fi:Sl,:1,ff,;t", Rachakonda commissionerate, L B. The Assistant Commissior uommissionerate, Ranga A"Ja:iB",l',t,gi I3ffi,gi3l"[?"lse officer, vanasthatipuram potice station, Rachakonda One CC to SRI RApOLU BHASKAR, Advocate [OPUC] Iff"r:ff.ibfiP FoR HoME, High court ror the state or retangana at Two CD Copies 5 6 7 B 9 ,aAA'onn with the copy of order dated 07.04.2025, in W.p.No. 10242 ot 2025) LS 6 .--:,t'-'.-- HIGH COURT DATED:1 010412025 (,( e-) .) O 11-lE S 14 r+ 'l oF 2 3 APn 20[ COMMON ORDER WRIT PETITION NOs: 10662,10727,10730,10767 & 10819 0F 2025 DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS Crcd'-l t THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition N os.a0243, 1026A, 10307 and 10318 of 2025 COMMO 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.l 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 th€ 6oaa r/de purchasers of the subject plots/land situated at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village, Turkayamjalzal Municipality, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, from their previous vendor5, obtained permissions from the concerned GHMC, made constructions and are living therein.

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 propefi; that though the suit was pending at the time when the petitioners purchased the subject plots, they were not made parties to the aforesaid suit, nor informed of the pendency oF the said suit; and thus, being, 6o4a de 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 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 libefi 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 . per co/, rd, 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 propefi, which 3 originally 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 tlle 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 proceedingsbeforethecompetentCourtofciviljurisdiction, vid e o.S.No.36loflgS4,whichisendedinfavouroftheunofficialrespondents herein. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since the 9. petitioners are peDdente /lte 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 unofficialrespondentshereinhavesucceededinthesuit'therequestof the petitioners for being provided with police protection to their life and Iibertyaswellastotheirpropertycannotbecons|deredbytheauthorities.

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, vrae 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. t2. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

13. Though the petitioners claim themselves to be bona r/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, r,roe 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 pendoDs provided under Section 52.of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

14. Further, the petitioners, who claim themselves to b€ bona rroe 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 suit, yrde O.S.No.361 of 1984. 5 L6, Further, it is also to be noted that if the petitioners claim of themselves not being aware of pending ritigation 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 properiy has been purchased by them, provide for indemnity, in the event of any defect in title. L7. For the above reason, this court is of the view that the petitioners should be relegated to avair the civir remedies, against the judgment and decree dt.09.09.2024 in O.S.No.361 of t984, 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 shail stand closed. Date:07.04.2025 GJ T. VrNOD KUMA& J