The High Court · 2025

Judgment

6. 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 The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram Circle, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District. 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, 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, Wo Rangaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occ Household, Fi/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 Petitioner No.1 Hanmapur Vilage, Bhongiri M-^oii, viJiori_br,".jr,!iri oi.tri"r U p pa I Vi I Ia s e, H a yat h nas a r iilti :' R ;", d" iffi v"o Lt ri"t

1 1 . Soma Shivashanker. Sio Mallaiah, Aged about 22 years, Occ Household. Ri/o 12. Soma Sabitha. D/o G yadamma, Aged about 25 years, H.No.4_ 245. No 1 3. Alla Rama Kirshna. S/o Retired Emprovee. R/o vijetha Super Market, Kondiprils.iriri,irirrbjiil','Hlrn, Reddy District 14. Mr. Syed Mohammed Asl.am, Sio^ Late Syed Monammed Ali, Aged 58 vears. occ Business nyo n.rvo.ro_s_2e-0, HL-r;'i; r\i;ijli, nyoeraoao 15. Mr. Razwan Shaik, S/o Shaik . Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years. Occ ,a;:; Business, Rr/o ,at No.204. nyJH.ru6'.,iiz-lz]iiE.iborpfri; npr",t,il"ii, Ghat, Hyderabad .-Late . Alla Sambaiah, Aqed about 64 years, Occ r.to.&,_ clLli"ii,i'e;=ows, Masjid Banda, Near - . ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 0f 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.S and 6 in non-initiating to provide protection to the petitioner rife and riberty as wefl as protection to the petitioners prot property to an extent of 204 Sq. yards in prot No.B8 in sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectivery which is situated at shivaji Nagar (sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipatity, Abdurarpurmet Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, and non-initiating to protect the petitioner from the iregar activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15, who are engaged the unsociar erements 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 highry iilegar, arbitrary and vioration of principres of Naturar Justice and arso in vioration of Articres, 14, 21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and consequenay direct the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner rife and riberty as we, as protection to the petitioner,s prot property to an extent of 204 Sq. yards in prot No.gg in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectivery which is situated at shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdurarpurmet Mandar, 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 lhe respondent Nos.S 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.88 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 ptovide 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. , 1A 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 plot property to an extent of 204 Sq. yards in PIot No.88 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 Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 1S pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRt. RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1to6 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.7to15 : -- W.P.No.1122 80F 2025 Between: !!a@i ,]g.yasr!ha, W/o K. yadaiah-, aged about 37 years, Occ- Housewife, Rio plot No.37 (west Part), Sivaji Nagar, K'amhigudi, iir(ayam;ar-virrale-,-l'uirir"iii,.'r"t Mandal, Ranga Reddy District AND ...PETITIONER

1. The State of Telanoana, Rep. Secretanat Buitdingl Secretariat, 'tf yOeraOaa-- - .by. its principal Secretary, Home Department,

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

5. The Assistant commissioner.of porice, vanastharipuram circre, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy Distriit.

6. The Station House officer, Vanastharipuram porice Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate.

7. Gundla !,atammg, W/o Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 62 years. Occ- Househotd, Rl/o Uppat Viilage, hayathnigai Tatuf:, R"rg, R;d& 6[iili. ""' ' SJ.ISIX"I: *iI UE;, 1,1?,3J T:X",iii,%1? +", 3,?"H, f"oj H,"34 vea rs, occ- 9. gmt. .Balamani, W/o Rangaiah,.Aged about 41 years, Occ_ Household, R/o Uppat Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy bistrict.

10.Baby Anusha, D/o Late G. padma, aged about g years, Occ- Minor, Rep. by her next friend grand mother ResponOini wo.Z -

11.i9Tq Shivashanker, Sio Mailaiah., Aged about 22 years, Occ_ Household Fl/o Uppat Vilage, Hayathnagar Tatuk,Hrnfi Rdddy 6irtr.t-&.---

12.Soma Sabitha, D/o G yadamma, Aged.abgut 25 years, H.No.4_245, No Hanmapur Vittage, Bhongiri Mandai, ViaJOri--afrongiri biJirict.

13.Alla. Rama Kirshna, S/o. .Ljte..Alla-sambaiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ- Retired Emptoyee, Rl/o Vi[a NO.42, CvOeiilleiO'ows. Masiid B;;;;' N;. '--- vuerna super Market, Kondapur, seriringampaily, Ranga RedSy Distriii. 14.Mr. Syed Mohammed Aslam, S^/o^Late Syed Mohammed Ali, Aged 58 years. Occ- Business, Rl/o H.No..t0-3-296, Huma'yun f.figar, Xyderab;;:-- "- ,""'"' 15.Mr. Razwan Shaik, S1q !I]ai.k Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years. Occ- Business, Rl/o flat No.204, nyo H.ruo.ro)+zl'lGiiij"ii"ni,inp""rt'.r?i'eXili 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.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 '104.6 sq. yardb in plot No.37 (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 to 15, 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.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 104.6 Sq. yards in Plot No.37 (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, 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 pleased to direct the respondent Nos.s 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 104.6 Sq. yards in Plot No.37 (west 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 petitione/s plot property to an extent of 104.6 Sq. yards pending disposal of the writ petition. !A NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the afiidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 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 prope(y to an extent of '104.6 Sq. yards in Plot No.37 (West Part) in Sy.No.240, 241-&242 respectivelywhich 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. I Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents No.1to6: GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.7to15 : W.P.No.11236 OF 2025 Between: Doosukanti Sandhya Rani, W/o D. Ramana, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Govt Employee, F|/o H.No.7-1 -2461 1 189, Renuka Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

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. Gundla Rajamma, Wo Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Household, R/o Uppal Village, hayathnagarTaluk, Ranga Reddy District. Gundla Yadamma, D/o Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Household, R/o Uppal Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District. 7 I

9. Smt. .Ba.lamani, Wo Rangaiah,.Aged about 41 years, Occ. Household, R/o Uppat Viflage, hayathnaga*r TatJt, Rangi Reddv 6Ltri"t.

10. Baby Anusha, D/o Late G padma, Aged about 9 years, Occ. Minor, Reo. bv -wo. i- Gii; 6: i;i#';;i,"'d; her next f riend ora ndmother of Fies"ponoJnt Uppat Vittage, Ha-yathnagar Trhf , i{ifisa-it"ooy"riistrtcr. ' s.oma ghivashanker, S/o Maflaiah, Aged about 22 years, occ. Househord, Rl/o Uppat Viilage, Hayathnagar TatuX, ningiRedOy g'istrict. 1 'l

12.Soma Sabitha, D/o G. yadamqa, Ha nmapur Viilage, B hongi ri Ma nda i, ViJiari_-eh6r,;l ri District. .{ged uOoui ZS years, H.No.4-245. No

13.Alla Rama Kirshna, S/o. .-L.ate. .Alla_ Sambaiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ. R.etired Emptoyee, RIo Vilta No.42,-CyiiJi-rrii"lb"o*s, MJsjid B;;;;, ti; vijetha super Market, Kondapur, seritin(ampairv-ninsi neoirv o-iiiriii. "-'' 14.Mr. Syed.Mohammed Aslam, S/o Late Syed Mohammed Ali, Aged 5g years. Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 1 0-3-zso-Humi'yun Niigli, Hydlri b,

15. Mr. . Razwan Shaik, S/o Shaik Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years, Occ. Business, Rlio ftat No.204, R/o H.ruo.rO_Z_Sz, Ndiiboip"hin epirti,"ii,ei;; Ghat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 ot rhe 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 riberty as wefl as protection to the petitioners prot property to an extent of 100 sq. yards in prot No.38 (south part) in sy'No'240' 241 and 242 respecrivery which is situated at shivaji Nagar (srisailam and Pochaiah venture), Kammaguda. viilage, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdurarpurmet Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, and non-initiating to protect the petitioner from the iilegar activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15, who are engaged the unsociar erements 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 highry iilegar, arbitrary and vioration of principres of Naturar Justice and also in vioration of Articres, 14, 21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia and consequenfly direct the respondent Nos.S and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner life and riberty as weil as protection to the petitioner,s prot property to an extent of .100 Sq. yards in plot No.3g (South part) in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectivery which is situated at shivaji Nagar (Srisairam and I Pochaiah Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect *" ,*,,"r"i ;;;;r" 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 fired in support of the petition, the High court may o" oL"* ," direbt the respondent Nos 5 and 6 to contror the ,r gar activities of the respondent Nos T to 15, who are creating the panic sin on in respect of venture of "srisairam and pochaiah venture" admeasuring to an extent of 100 Sq. yards in Plot No.38 (South part) in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Virage, under Turkayamjar Municiparity, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ragga Reddy District; and to provide protection to, the petitioner rife and riberty as wer'as protection to the petitioner,s prot property to an extent of 100 sq. yards pending disposar of the writ petition. 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 provide protection to the petitioner rife and riberty as we'as protection to the petitioners prot property to an extent of 100 sq' yards in Plot No.38 (South part) in sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Srisailam and pochaiah Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the iregar activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner :SRl RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel forthe Respondents No.1to6 : Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.7to15 : W.P.No. 1241 0F 202s Between: Nukala Tirup-athaiah, s/o Nukara yeilaiah, aged about 31 years, occ Emorovee. Ri/o Kammasuoi, rLrkiyi;jrr-q'r,s"lt'dirli"r,iliii"ifi5;,aLr, R3,l#"-%.?'bli,N.agar, AND ...PETITIONER !

1. The State of Telanoana Rep. by.its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buitdingl Secretafiat,'Hvoeia6;A-' -"-' "* 2. The Director General of police, Telagnana State, Hyderabad. 3, The commissioner of porice, Rachakonda commissionerate, Hyderabad. 4' The Deputy cornmissioner. ol porice, Rachakonda commissionerate, L.B. Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District.

5. The Assistant commissioner.oJ porice, vanastharipuram circre, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy DistriCt. Commissionerate.

6. The Station House officer, vanastharipuram porice station, Rachakonda 'ft x3lx"fi :,fi fl tfu #,1i,"f;x,j?***'r?lL,,flyhr,"3?"Hlo8iJ,s,xtio"" ' SxlSl?,"[:o*?rffi;,P,1i,,f":x,]i",*ilrr:,i];,,fly?1,.6'#LolX oy3,,,i"=i o." 9. gmt. Balamani, Wo Rangaiah,. Aged about 41 years, Occ Household, Rl/o Uppat Viilage, hayathnagai ratut<, HangiR"ooV diitri"t. 1O.Baby Anusha, D/o Late.G. padma, aged about g years, Occ Minor, Rep. by her next friend grand mother Respond6ni 7 - - -- - '

11.Soma Sh.ivashanker, S/o Mallaia.h, Aged about 22 years, Occ Household, Rl/o Uppat Viflage, Hdyathnagar Tatuk,' na"nga ReJUf -Oiltrict.'

12.Soma Sabitha, D/o G. yadamma, Aged ab-out 25 years, H.No.4_245, No Hanmapur Village, Bhongiri Mandat, ViOaOnaghonSiri District

13.411a. Rama Kirshna, Sio Late Aila sambaiah, Aoed about 64 years, occ R.etired Emptoy.ee, Fyo Vila NO.42, CvOo U'eio"o*s, rr,raliid ejnJil'tE; "--' Vijetha super Marker, Kondapur, seritingiampairy, ninsi neoiiy o-isiriJ'

14.Mr. S_yed Mohammed nsl11 Occ Business, Fro H.No.10_3_zso, Humiyun tillii, Hvlt.6bovvg Late Syed Mohammed Ali, Aged 58 years, ev ,vs'|u, ^S19

15.Mr. . Razwan Shaik, S/o Shaik Moulana Shareef, Aged 43 years, Occ Business, Ryo ftat No.2O4, R:/o H.No.10-2-Cz, liest6orpE" eqirt#6ii,'Ar;; 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 miy 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 protectron to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's plot property to an extent of 204 Siq. yards in Plot No.82 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Siidhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, and non-initiating to pro'tect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 1S, 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 204 Sq. yards in Plot No.82 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 pleased to direct the respondent Nos.s and 6 to control the illegal activities of the respondent NoS.7 to 15, who are creating the panic siluation in respect of venture of Sridhar Reddy & Ramesh Reddy Venture admeasuring to an extent of 204 Sq. yards in Plot No.B2 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 204 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 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 rife and riberty as wefl as protection to the petitioner's prot_.property to an extent of 204 sq. yards in Plot No.82 in sy.No.240, 241 &242 respectively which is situeted at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy & Ramesh Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Vifiage, under Turkayamjar Municiparity, Abdurarpurmet Mandar, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the iilegar activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 1 5 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl RApOLU BHASKAR Counsel forthe Respondents No.1to6: Gp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.7to15: The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ,:,/ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.Nos. LL2O7. LL22A. lL236and LL24Lof2025 COMMON ORDER: Since, the /s involved in these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing and disposal by this common order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondents, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, both the Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

3. Having regard to the nature of /rs involved in these Writ Petitions I and the manner of disposal, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondents in all the writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions.

4. When the matters are taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respective respondents, in all the writ petitions, submit that the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in WP.No.10243 of 2025, dt.07.04.2025, and the said order would apply' in all force to the facts of the present cases. 2

5. Recording the same, for reasons alike as were stated in the Writ Petition, yZe W.P.No.10243 of 2025, dt.07.04.2025, 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, dt.07.04.2025, to this order.

7. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secre State of Telangana, Hyderabad. SD/.T.TIRUMALA DEVI EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER t Building, Secretariat,

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. one cc to sRi F{APOLU BHASKAR, Advocate. [oPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTI 9. Two CD Copies. (Along with a copy of he Order, dated 07-04-2025 in W'P.No.1 O243 of 2025 to this Order) BSK LS q HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 610412025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.l 1207, 11228, 11236 & 11241 0F 2025 o DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS ,) 0!or w{ E STA,6 rr\ ( t 2 B APB ?$?5 i t f'r's or,r CB ?o ) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition os.LO243, 10268. 1O3O7 and 10318 of 2025 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 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 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 6oao 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

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 parties to the aforesaid suit, nor informed of the pendency of the said suit; and thus, being, bona r/de purchasers, they are to be protected from interference being caused by the unofficial respondents herein, who are seeking to dispossesd 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 propertyi 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 contrd. 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 Power of Attorney Holders, who sord the subject prots to various peopre by executing registered sale deeds, even though the subject property was subject matter of suit, rroe O.S.No.361 of 1994.

8. 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 unofficiar respondents herein.

9. Learned Government pleader further submits that since the petitioners ar€ pqa4qa 66 /rre. purchasers from the persons claiming themselves to be the owners of the suit schedule property, petitionerc cannot claim any better tifle 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 Ling 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, y,ue O.S.No.36l of Lgg4, they have to avail civir remedies provided under raw 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 contentigns urged.

13. Though the petitioners claim themselves to be boha ride 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, vioe 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 peDde4s provided under Section 52 of the Transfer of Propefi Act, 1882. L4. Further, 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 petitoners 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, vrae O.S.No.36l of 1984. :i l l l l l l I l 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 60,a rde 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 L984, 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. Date:07.04.2025 GJ T. VINOD KUMA& J