High Court · 2025

. _ $jet1a Super Market, {o1dapg1 Serilingampally, Ranga neOdy District. 14. Mr. Syed Mohammed Aslam,-S/o^ Syed MohammeO Rti, Aled 58 years, 9cc- Business, R/o H.No.10-3-296, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabid 15.Mr. Razwan Shaik, S/o Shaik Moulana Shareef, nlged +3 years, Occ- ^Late Business, Fi/o flat No.204, R/o H.No.10-2-37, Nest-Dolphii 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 tiigh Court m'dy 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 plot property to an extent ot 122.22 Sq.yards in Plot No.38 (West Part) 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, and non-initiating to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 tc, '15 is highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles, 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequenfly 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 122.22 Sq.yards in Plot No.38 (West Part) in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectivr:ly which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Hari Kishan Reddy Venture), Kammagr:da Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet t\/andal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos. Z 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 lce pleased to direct the respondent Nos.S and 6 to provide protection to the petitir:ner life and liberty as well as protection. to the petitioner's plot property to an extent of 122.22 Sq.yards in Plot No.38 (West Part) in Sy.No.240, 241 &242 rerspectivelywhich is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Hari Kishan Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Redd'1 District, to protect the petitioner froni the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to i 5 pending disposal of the writ petition. 1A 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 t,e 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 ',Hari Kishan Reddy Venture" admeasuring to an exent of 122.22 sq.yards in p.lot No.38 (west Part) in sy.No.240, 241 & 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjar Municiparity, Abdurarpurmet Mandar, 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 122.22 sq.yards pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RApOLU BHASKAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 6: Gp FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.7 TO 15: - W.P.NO: 10875 OF 2025 Between: A. Yada-giri, sio A. chandraiah, aged about 31 years, occ. Business, Rr/o prot No.'l 1, Sivaji [agar, Kammaguda] Turkayam Vllage, Abdullailrili [\i;;;t, Ranga Reddy District. AND ...PET|TIONER Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District. Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District. Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabid.

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. byits principal Secretary, Home Department, 2. The Director General of police_ Tel-agnana State, Hyderabad. 3. The commissioner of Porice, Rachakonda commis6ionerate. Hvderabad. 4. The Deputy.Commissioner of police, Rachakonda Cormis"ibn6irte, l.A. 5. The Assistant comniissioneiof police, Vanasthalipuram circle, Rachakonda 6. The Station House Offider, Vanisthalipuram police Station, Rachakonda 7. Gundla Eqj qfrq, W/o Gundta Jangaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ. ^ Household,, F/o Uppal Viilage, hayaihnagar Tatuk, nangi hliay-Oisirict. 8. liundta Yadamma, Dio Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 3? years,bcc. ^ Household, nyp.9ppq! Vi[age, hayathnagarTatuk, nanga'R;Oty-DGtrict. 9. 9.mt. Balamani, Wo Rangaiah, Agqd about 41 yeirs, Oti. HoudetrotO,-Wo 10. Baby Anusha, D/o Late 9 plOT.e, aged.about 9 years, Occ. Minor, Rep. by 1 1 . 9oma S.hivashanker, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 22 years, Occ. Household, R/o lppalVillage, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddi Disirict. her next friend grand mother Petitioner No.1 Commissionerate

12.Soma Sabitha, D/o G. Yadam_ma, Aged-about 21; years, H.No.4_245, R/o Uppal Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ringa Reddv District. Hanmapur Village, Bhongiri Mandal, yadadri-Bhonqiri District. RetiredEmployee, Rl/o Viila NO.42, C..yber Meaidows, l/as;iO SinA'a, f.fear VUetha Super Market, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy Disirict.

13.Alla Rama Kirshna, S/o Late.Aila_sambaiah, Aged ;bout 64 years, Occ.

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, S/o Shaik Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o flat No.204, Rl/o H.No.10-2-37, Nest Dolphin Apartment, Bazar Ghat' H'derabad ...RE'P.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewitti, the tiigh 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 266.6 Sq. yards in Plot No.11 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamzal IVlunicipality, 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 house property to an extentof 266.6 Sq. yards in PIot No.11 in Sy.No.240,241 itnd 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 respondent Nos.7 to '1 5. 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 N6s.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 266.6 Sq. yards in Plot No.11 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), llammaguda Village, under Turkayamzal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Rangra 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 venture of "sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture" admeasuring to an extent of 266.6 Sq. yards in plot No.11 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamzal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. and to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's house property to an extent of 266.6 Sq. yards pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 6: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 TO 15: - W.P.NO: 10937 OF 2025 Between: Smt. Guttikonda Gousia Banoo, W/o G. I\Iahaboob Subhani, aged about 47 years, Ocq Housewife, Rl/o Plot No.66, Sivaji Nagar, -Kammaguda, Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. AND ...PETITIONER Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, 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. 5. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram Circle, Rachakonda 6. The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District. Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District. Commissionerate.

7. Gundla Rajamma, Wo Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Household, Ri./o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District. B. Gundla Yadamma, D/o Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ. . Household, R/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District. her next friend grand mother petitibn6r No.1

9. Smt. Balamani, Wo.Rangaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Household, .^ Fl/o.Uppal Village, hayathnagar TZtuk, Ranga Fieddy District. '10.Baby Anusha, D/o Late G. p-adma, aged ab-out 9 yeirs, Occ. Minor, Rdp. by 11. Soma Shivashanker, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 22 years, Occ. Household, R/o . ^ 9pprt lilla.ge, Hayathnagar Tatuk, Ringa Reddy District. 12.Soma Sabitha, D/o g. Yidamma, Aged-about 25 years, H.No.4-245, Rt/o . ^ H.anmapur V_i Ilage, Bhongiri Mandal,"yadadri-Bhongiri i,istrict. '1 3.Alla. Rama Kirshna,_S/o. Late Alta Sambaiah, Aggd ibout 64 years, Occ. Retired Fmployee, Rl/o Vilta NO.42, Cyber frrteidows, Masjid'Band'a, Near Vijetha Super Market, Kondapur, SeriInqampally, Ranqa ReOOv Oisirici- '14 Mr. Syed Mohammed Aslam, S/o Late S-yed Mohamm6<, Ali, Aged SA V"ar", --'-- ._ 9cc. Business, Rl/o H.No.10-3-296, Hum-ayun Nagar, HrrOeriUio. 15. Mr. Razwan Shaik, S/o Shaik Moulbna Shlreef, Aged +:f years, Occ. Business, Fl/o flat No.204, R/o H.No.i0-2-37, N'est-Dolphih ApartmJnt, eazar Ghat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India 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 ancl 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.66 in sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectivery which is situated at shivaji Nagar (sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy venture), Kammaguda Viilage, under Turk,ayamjar Municiparity, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and non-initiating to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to .l 5 is highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Principles of Naturat 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.66 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy venture), Kammaguda viilage, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandar, Ranga Redriy District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos T to 15. lA NO: 'l OF 2o25 Petition under Section 1s1 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 rife and riberty as well as protection to the petitioner's plot property to an extent of 204 sq. yards in Plot No.66 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 venture of "sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture" admeasuring to an extent of 204 sq. yards in plot No.66 in Sy.No.240, 241 & 242 respectivery which is situated at shivaji Nagar, Karnmaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municiparity, 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 disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RApOLU BHASKAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 6: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 TO 15: - W.P.NO: 10990 OF 2025 Between: Qojja Naveen Reddy, S/o Damodhar Reddy, aged about 35 vears. Occ Business Ri/o Plot,.No.63 (South part),- Sii{i Nagar, fdmma'guta, Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddybistrict. AND ...PET|TIONER Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 1 . The State of Telangana, Rep. by jls Principal Secretary, Home Department 2. The Director General.of Police, Telagnana State, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commisiionerate, Hyderabad. 4- The Deputy.Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissibnerate, L.B. 5. The Assistant Commissionerof Police, Vanasthalipuram Circle, Rachakonda Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District. Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District. Com m issio n e rate. Household, Rl/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District.

6. The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda 7. Gundla Rajamma, Wo Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 621 years, Occ. 8. Gundla Yadamma, D/o Gundla Ja-ngaiah, Aged about 3z! years, Occ. Household, R/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District. 9. Smt. Balamani, W/o Rangaiah, A6ed about 41 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o 't0.BabyAnusha, D/o Late G. Padma, aged about 9 years, t)cc. Minor, Rep. by Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District. her next friend grand mother Petitioner No.1 1'l .Soma 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, Rl/o Hanmapur Village, Bhongiri Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District.

13.Alla Rama Kirshna, S/o Late Alla Sambaiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Retired Employee, Fl/o Villa NO.42, Cyber Meadows, Mersjid 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, R:/o H.No.10-3-296, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. 15.Mr. Razwan Shaik, S/o Shaik Moulana Shareef, Aged 43i years, Occ. Business, R/o flat No.204, FUo H.No.10-2-37, Nest Dolptrin Apartment, Bazar Ghat' HYderabad ...RE'P.NDENTS 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 ir 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 '150 Sq. yards in Plot \o.63 (South Part) in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Gundla Srisailam and Pochaiah 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 150 Sq. yards in Plot No.63 (South Part) in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Gundla Srisailam and Pochaiah Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddv District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 CpC praying that in the circumstances sta{ed in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou( may be pleased to direct the respondent Nos.s and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberly as well as protection to the petitioner s plot property to an extent of 150 Sq. yards in PIot No.63 (South Part) in Sy.No.240, 241 an.- 242 respeclively 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 1 5 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 venture of "Gundla Srisailam and Pochaiah Venture" admeasuring to an extent of 't 50 Sq. yards in Plot No.63 (South Part) 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 150 Sq. yards pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 6: GP FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.7 TO 15: - W.P.NO: 11003 OF 202s Between: Smt. Chakkani Sunitha, Wo Satyanarayana, aged about 29 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o Plot No.43 (Easl Part), Sivaji Nagar, Kammaguda, Turkayamjal Village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ! AND ...PETITIONER 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad. - -- Commissione rate. Telangana State, Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of police, 3. The commiss'oner. of potice, riac-rrikdnai cJmmis6ione rate. Hvderabad 4. The Deputy Commissioner oi poiCe, nacnrkorJ; C;;;i[il;J;;;,i:E. _ !."Sa Division, nanga RedOv Oistri;t. 5. The Assistant comm-issioneioi porile, vanastharipuram circre, Rachakonda - Commissionerate, Ranga ReOOv Ois1rrct. 6. Ihe Station House officer, Van5stharipuram porice statirn, Rachakonda 7. Gundla Rqlamma, Wo. Gundla Jangaiah, Aged _about 62 years, Occ_ Househord, R/o Uppar Virage, n"vuinniri"i=Fir0t, nanq,f Reod,idi.tri"t 8 G und ra yada m ma. D/o c, norb i?"rilii nl as"d;'# ;i'iz'rdIll'o7t1"'"j Ho u seho td. R,o r,r opa t vi ua ge, h ayaih nigaiiitu K {j,ibr,iEo,iv"di".t,t.t. 9. Smt. Bataman, wio Rangaiari, [d;d ;#;i 4i yeurs, occ_ Househotd, Rl/o . Uppat Viilage, hayathnag-ar Taiuki Ringi ReOOy Oisiriit. 10 Baby Anusha. D/o Lare e. e+mJ, ile"o-atiiJ16 yeiis.'ir"c_ Minor, Rep. by her next friend grand mother Resobn"dent no. i 11. soma shivashanker, S/o Mailaiati, Aged about 22 years, occ- Househord . ^ R/o UppatVilase, HayathnasJiiatu[, RJndnEti-Diititi ''"'""""'" 'l2.goma sabitha D/o q.'yadafi;", Add;b;irr 25 y;a;,-..l.N; .4_245.No . ^ Hanmapur Vilage, Bhongiri uanoatJyiOa-o+bhoigin ijisiriii 13. AIta Rama Kirshna,S/o. Lite.Atta-sjmbjian, Ag"d ibori 6llears, Occ_ Retired Emptoyee, Rl/o Vi,a NO.a2, Cybei M"alows, Miriiil,ArrillNlu,. . . [jet1a Super r\,4arker, Kondapur, Sbriringin;bilv; R;;d ji;diil o[iiiti. , 14. Mr. Syed Mohammed Astam,' S/o Late SGO ._ Occ- Business. RioH-No.10 S-2S6, Humlyun Nrg"r, Hy,jerabjd.- --,-"' Ajl AdeO.-sO'vlrrr, 15. Mr. Razwan Shaik, S/o Shaik MoutbnJ Sniiebt. n"oei +,e ,."i"-b"._ Business, Rl/o frat No.204, Rvo H.No.ro-i-sz, N'".i"66rpiii"ipirti..,l"nt, e".r, Ghat, Hyderabad. -rrrfoir'ammdO - ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndi:r praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the righ court may be pleased to issue an .rder or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus decrarinq the action of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in non -initiating to provide protection to the petitioner rife and riberty as we as protection to the petitioners plot prope(y to an extent of 122.22Sq. yards in prot No.43 (East part) in sy'No 240, 241 and 242 respectivery which is situated at shivaji Nagar (Hari Kishan Reddy venture), Kammaguda Viilage, under Turkayamjar Municiparity, Abdulalpurmet Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, and non -initiating to protect the petitioner from the iilegar activities of the respondent Nos.7 k) 15 is highry ifiegar, arbitrary and vioration of priniipres of Naturar Justice and arso in vioration of Articles, 14,21 and 300-4 of the constitution of rndia and consequenfly direct the respondent Nos-s and 6 to provide protection to the petifionr-.r rife and riberty as well as protection to the petitioners prot property to an e).tent ot 122.22 sq. yards in PIot No.43 (East part) in sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectivery 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. 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 Cburt 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 petitioners plot property to an extent of 122.22 Sq. yards in Plot No.43 (East Part) in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 rcspeclively 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 pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 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 "Hari Kishan Reddy Venture" admeasuring to an extent of 122.22 Sq. yards in Plot No.43 (East Part) 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 petitioners plot property to an extent of 122.22 Sq. yards pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the R.espondent Nos.1 TO 6: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.7 TO 15: - The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE T. VTNOD KUMAR Writ Petition Nos.10864, 10875. 10937.1O99O and 110O3 ot 2025 COMMON ORDER Since the qrievance of the petitioners in all these \ffrit Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this comnton order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learnr:d Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6 irr all these Writ Petitions, and with the consent of the learned counsel a6rpearing for the parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

3. Having reqard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petitions at the admission stage and the nature of irs 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 are lhe 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, have obtained permissions from the concerned GHMC, made constructions and are living therein. 2

5. It is the further case of the petitioners that the unofficial respondents herein are now crarming the subject rand by virtue of the final decree dt.09.09.2024 passed in O.S.No.361 of 19g4 by the I Additional senior Civir Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, which was fired 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 parties to the aforesaid suit, nor informed of the pendency of the said suit; 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 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 ls contended as highly illegat and arbitrary.

7. Per contra, learned Government pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6 would submit that the petitioners claim themselves totbe the purchasers of the suit schedule property, which 7 ) originally belong to Kosika Pentaiah and 10 others, represented by their PowerofAttorneYHolders,whosoldthesubjectplotstovaLriouspeopleby executing registered sale deeds, even though the subjert property was subject matter of suit, videO.S.No.361 of 1984'

8. Learned (iovernment Pleader would further submit that the petitioners had purchased the subject property during the pendency of the proceedings before the competent Court of civil iurisdiction, vide o.S.No.361 of 1984, which iS ended in favour of the Unoffl':ial respondents herein.

9. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since the petitionersarependente/ifepurchasersfromthep{]rsonsclaiming 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 fbr being provided with police protection to their life and libefi as well as to their property cannot be considered b1'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, rde O.S.No.361 of 1984, they have to avail civil remedies provided under law and,:annot approach \,\ '\l \ 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 bona fide 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, vriy'eO.S.No.361 of 1984 and the said party having sold the subject property during the pendency of the sult, the same would be covered by doctrine of lis pendens provided under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

14. Further, the petitioners, who claim themselves to be bona fide 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, v/iy'eO.S.No.361 of 1984. t 5

16. Further, it is also to be noted that if the petitioners claim oF themselves not being aware of oending litigation and thus being bona fide purchasers, they are required to initiate action against thr:ir 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 erpproaching 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. /TTRUE COPY// SD/-T.TIRUMALA DEVI D PUTY REGISTRAR f; SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat tluilding, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. Ihe Director General of Police, Telagnana State, Hyderabad. The Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Hyderabad. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Comnlissionerate, L.B. Nagar Division Ranga Reddy District. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram Circle, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District. The Station House Officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Stati,rn, Rachakonda Commissionerate. One CC to SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate [OPUCI Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies $ To 1 2 3 4 5 6 I I PSK. LS HIGH COURT DATED:11tO4t2O2S COMMON ORDER WPNos.10864, 1}gtS,1Og37,1O99O AND 11003 of 2025 '(a\ ----.-.. ? 3 APB 2[2 t\ s :') .t ,+ t c-.SDATC\\ * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT GOSTS Gr**