High Court · 2025

Judgment

5. 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.

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

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

10.Baby Anusha, D/o Late G. Padma, aged about g years, Occ. Minor, Rep. by her next friend grand mother R7

11.Soma Shivashanker, S/o Mallaiah, Aged about 22 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o Uppal Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District. "i:Tfi ,?1?$ft;n"?6"."o*I'"$1ffi t'A?"'f iB?['"3f, "**',*"ir**i*;*1fui*ldruff ifi ,, Uilg:t,,*:::H[",,',t"'t#.-?'&,3T"iJ,i,L '6"ffi 'n*oo-245'No 'i1,l'll*qfiqi':: K:!3Tffi5#' Ased 58 vears' 1 " ffi F3iffi gi t r m RPh,s:iilii'? t'13ib "ftfl?". ^1" ,,"""81i' "?i5; ...RESPONDENTS PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe

circumstances statecl in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may bd 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 115 Sq' yards in Plot No 42 (South Part) in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaii Nagar (Gundla Srisailam and Pochaiah Venture)' Kammaguda Village' under Turkayamial 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 Natu'ral Justice and also in violation of Articles' 14' 21 and300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direcr: 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 115 Sq' yards in Plot No 42 (South Part) in Sy'No'240' 241 and242 respectively which'is situated at Shivaii Nagar (Gundla Srisailam and Pochaiah Venture), Kammaguda Village' under Turkayamjal Municipality' Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the resPondent Nos T to 1 5' IA :1NO OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in th in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High C direct the respondent Nos'S and 6 to control the i e circumstances stated ourt may be Pleased to llegal activities of the l 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 115 Sq. yards in PIot No.42 (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 ptotection to the petitioner s plot property to an extent of 1 15 Sq. yards pending disposal of the writ petition. IANO:2OF 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 1 '15 Sq. yards in Plot No.42 (South Part) in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at shivaji Nagar (Gundla srisailam and Pochaiah Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamj al Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME WRIT PETITIO N NO: 11014 OF 2025 Between: Siliveru Yadagiri, S/o Mallaiah, Aged abou! 41 years, Occ. Pvt Employe.e, Rl'/o No.st, "sivaji Nagar Phise-ll, Kammaguda' Turkayamjal Village, pioi - Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...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 Deoutv Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, L'B' Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District. .U".fii81.,:X:lii:Hffi , 6 The Station House Offi""'' Vunu"thalipuram Police Station' Rachakonda HTr"rlrL:Xlfiu'"u='haripuramcircre'Rachakonda "',{,ir"8}:fl li"i.ii"%1?+"'.i*n"S'ffiH"f&Je"?l'i'o* ,g$"X"[:ffi fflfu ';#liiffi 3:h,Yil.[U',1?liffl?'"#".:tiili'?l'ao"Househord'R/o ,,;J,:;il:'B;;llia,";gf *rAssgn::Hl'-'""r3,::uri"iit?'?;JJ o cc H o u seh o I d' R/o '' ni'J vl]la::' a:1,"*,.:A }}+3fi x' A3i3'"H?t.o""ffi ,, i:r$#:'S,il,31"u.*i3if, ffi 3i, +gs:' fi !s'i: f",n b13['];' " lil*gitl"^;' i;f{:ylr;$si##, fu {:ft o -2 45' N o * * " $s' ' ,,X[JU***:H[?j,t"'."#..?L%f f,f ",'J,",iK:[3[ffi "xiffi S#6$sed58ve:rs' '#i5; "[lrpg**:l'1'h"?fo'J3'[s"1Y3']1'lK::ib"f,""#'fi"n[";ffi ...RESPONDENTS Petition uncler 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 petitioners house property to an extent of 204 Sq' yards in Sy'No'240' 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaii Nagar (sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture)' Kammaguda Village' under Turkayamzal 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 fromhishouseishighlyillegal,arbitraryandViolationofPrinciplesofNatural JusticeandalsoinViolationofArticles,14,2land300.AoftheConstitutionof lndiaandconsequentlydirecttherespondentNos.Sand6to.provideprotection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioners housea property to an extent of 204 Sq. yards in Sy No'240' 241 and 242 respectively whichissituatedatShivajiNagar(SridharRedd!andRameshReddyVenture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayamzal Municipality' Abdulalpurmef Mandal' RangaReddyDistrict,toprotectthepetitionerfromtheillegalactivitiesofthe respondent Nos.7 to 15. IA NO: 10F 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 directtherespondentNos.5and6toprovideprotectiontothepetitionerlifeand liberty as well as protection.to the petitioners house property to an extent of 204 Sq.yardsinSy.No.240,24land242respectivelywhichissituatedatShivaji 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 15 pending disposal of the writ petition' IA NO:,2OF 2025 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto directtherespondentNos.sand6.tocontroltheillegalactivitiesofthe respondent Nos.7 to 15, who are creating the panic situation in respect of venture of sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture 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 petitioners house property to an extent of 204 Sq' yards pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the flespondent No.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME WRIT P ETITION No: 11017 0F 2025 Between: Ramavath Ramu, S/o Balu Naik aged about 34 years, Occ Private Employee' Hi;""iGi G.6i, Nagiar' Kammaluda, Turkavamjal Village' Abdullapunnet Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distrigt -shivaji ...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 5 The Deoutv Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate' L'B' Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District The Assistant commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram circle, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District.

6. The static,n House officer, Vanasthalipuram Police Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate. z Gundla Raiamma, W/o Gund'la Jangaiah, Aged about 62 ' HoriuhoiA,'F/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District' 8. Gundla Yadamma, D/o Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about .34 Years., Occ " ilouJefrof O, Ryo Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District' -years' Occ

9. Smt. Balarnani, W/o Rangaiah, Aged about 41 - -years, Uppat Village, hayathnagai Taluk, Ranga Reddy District. Occ Household, Rl/o

10.Babv Anusha, D/o Late G. Padma, aged about 9 years, Occ Minor, Rep by her ne>rt friend grand mother Petitioner No.1

11. Soma shirrashanker, s/o Mallaiah, Aged atout 22 years, occ Household, Fl/o ' Uppat Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District' 12.Soma Sabitha, D/o G. Yadamma, Aged ab-out 25 Lears, H'No4-245, Rlio - Hanmapw Village, Bhongiri Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District' 1 3. Alla Rama Kirshna, S/o Late Alla Sambaiah, Aged about.. 64^ years' .Occ - nutr"J Ernployee, R/o Villa NO.42, Cyber Meadows, Masjid Banda' Near VGf i Sup"r Market, Kondapur, Serilingjampally, Ranga Reddy District' 14.tvlr. sved Mohammed Aslam, s/o Late Syed Mohammed Ali, Aged 58 years, ' O-cc Business, Ri/o H.No.10-3-296' Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad'

15.Mr. Razwan Shaik, S/o Shaik Moulana ShareeI, Aged 43.years,-Occ - eusineil, Fvo flat N6.204, Rl/o H.No.10-2-37, Nest Dolphin Apartment' Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthe 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 ofMandamusdeclaringtheactionoftherespondentNos.5and6innon.initiating to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's house property to an extent of 11'l Sq lards in Plot No 61 Southern 'Nagar in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture)' Kammaguda Village' under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal' Ranga Reddy District' and non-initiating to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos.7 to 15 is highly illegal' arbitrary and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and also in violation of Articles' 14' 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondent Nos'S and 6 to provide protection to the petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's house property to an extent of 111 Sq. yards in Plot No 61 in Sy'No'240' 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture), Kammaguda Village' under Turkayamzal Municipality' Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District' to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos'7 to 15' IA NO: 10F 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying th in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the direct the respondent Nos'S and 6 to provide prot liberty as well as protection to the petitioner's hou Sq. yards in Plot No'61 Southern in Sy'No'240' 2 situated at Shivaji Kammaguda Village' Ranga ReddY District respondent Nos'7 to 1 at in the circumstances stated High Court maY be Pleased to ection to the Petitioner life and se property to an extent of 111 41 & 242 respectively which is Nagar (Sridhar ReddY and Ramesh ReddY Venture)' under Turkayamjal Municipality' Abdulalpurmet Mandal' , to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the 5 pending disposal of the writ petition' IANO:2 OF 2025 i 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 pleased to / directtherespondentNos.5and6tocontroltheillegalactivitiesofthe respondentNosTtol5,whoarecreatingthepanicsituationin',respectof venture of "sridhar Reddy and Ramesh Reddy Venture". admeasuring to an yards in Plot No.6'1 Southern in Sy No 240' 241 & 2tz extent of 111 Sq. is situated at Shivaji Nagar, Kammaguda Village, under respectivelY which Turkayamjal lvlunicipality, Abdulalpurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District; and to provideprotectiontothepetitionerlifeandlibertyasWellaSprotectiontothe petitioner's house property to an extent of 111 Sq yards pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME WRIT PET ITION NO: 1 1085 0F 2025 Between: T. Pavani Reddy, W/o T. Pavani Reddy, aged about . 42 years'... Occ i"r.6uilii,. mo Fiot No.os, siviji Nagar, Klmmaguda, Turkavamjal Village' Abdullapurmet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...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 comrnissioner of Police, Rachakonda commissionerate, Hyderabad 4. The Deputy commissioner of Police, Rachakonda commissionerate, L.B. Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy District.

5. The Ass|stant Commissioner of Police, Vanasthalipuram Circle, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy District'

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

7. Gundla Rajamma, W/o Gundla Jangaiah, . Aged about 62 y.ears' Occ ' 6;;"h"i.i, nyo uppar Village, hayathna-gar Taluk' Ranga Reddy District' B. Gundla 'fadamma, D/o Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 34 " -years' HJ|.iiefrorO, nio Uppat Vittage, hayathna-garTaluk, Ranga Reddy District' Occ

9. Smt. Balamani, Wlo Rangaiah, Aged about.41 - -years, Uppat Vittage, tiayathnagai Taluk, Ranga Reddy District' Occ Household' Fi/o lo.Babv Anusha. D/o Late G. Padma, aged about 9 years, Occ Minor' Rep' by her next friend grand mother respondent no 7 I I 1. soma shivashanker, S/o Mallaiah, Aged alout 22 years, occ Household, Rl/o Uppal Village, Hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District'

12.Soma Sabitha, D/o G. Yadamma, Aged about 25 fears, H'No'4-245, R/o ' HanmapurVilldge, Bhongiri Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongiri District.

13.Alla Rama Kirshna, S/o Late Alla Sambaiah' Aged about.64-years,-Occ Villa NO 42,. Cyber Meadows, Masjid Panda, Near Retired Employee, Vijetha Sup6r Mar(et, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District. 'l4.Mr. Syed Mohammed Aslam, S/o Late Syed lv|'ohammed Ali, Aged 58 years, 'R:/o Occ Business, Fl/o H.No.10-3-296, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad.

15.[v1r. Razwan Shaik, S/o Shaik Moulana Sharee{, 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 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 265 Sq. yards in Plot No'69 in Sy.No.240, 241 and 242 respectively which is situated at shivaji Nagar (Gundla srisailam and Pochaiah Venture), Kammaguda Village, under Turkayarnjal 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-A of the constitution of lndia and consequently direot 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 265 Sq. yards in Plot No.69 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, 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 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 265 sq. yards in Plot No.69 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, to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of-lhe 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 irr 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 .1 5, who are creating the panic situation in respect of venture of "Gundla Srisailam and Pochaiah Venture" admeasuring to an extent of 265 Sq. yards in Plot No.69 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 anextentof265Sq.'yardspendingdisposalofthewritpetitionandpass Counset for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME WRIT PETITION NO: 111 79 0F 2025 Between: Doosukanti Vasantha Laxmi, W/o D. Balakrishna, aged about 70 years, occ' futrse*ife, nio H.No.7-1-246111N118918, Renuka Nagar, Balkampet, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildingl Secretaiiat, 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.

7. Gundla Raiamma, W/o Gundla Jangaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Household, Rio Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District. B. Gundla Yadamma, D/o Gundla Jangaiah, fged about 34 years, Occ. Household, R/o Uppal Village, hayathnagarTaluk, Ranga Reddy Districl. 9. Smt. Balamani, W/o Rangaiah, Aged about 4'l years, Occ. Household, Rl/o Uppal Village, hayathnagar Taluk, Ranga Reddy District'

10.Babv Anusha, D/o Late G. Padma, aged about 9 years, Occ. Minor, Rep. by her next friend grandmother of Respondent No.7 (Gundla Rajamma), Rl/o Uppal Village, Hayathnagar Taluk' Ranga Reddy District.

11.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, No Hanmapur Village, Bhongiri [\/andal' Yadadri-Bhongiri District. 1 3. Atla Rama Kirshna, S/o Late Alla Sambaiah, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Retlred Emolovee, Rio Villa NO.42' Cyber Meadows, Masj id Banda, Near Vijetha Sup6r Market, Kondapur, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.

14.Mr. Sved Mohammed Aslam, S/o Late Syed Mohammed Ali, Aged 58 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No.10-3-296, Humayun Nagar, Hyderabad. 1 5. Mr. Razwan Shaik, S/o Shaik ltrloulana Shareef, 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 ari 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 225 Sq. yards in PIot No.21 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, 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 India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to provide protection to the I / petitioner life and liberty as well as protection to the petitioner s plot property to anextentof225Sq.yardsinPlotNo2linSy'No240'241and242respectively which is situated at Shivaji Nagar (Srisailam and Pochaiah Venture)' Kammaguda Village. under Turkayamial Municipality' Abdulalpurmet Mandal' RangaReddyDistrict,toprotectthepetitionerfromtheillegalactivitiesofthe respondent Nos.7 to 15. lA NO: 1 oF 2025 PetitionunderSectionl5lcPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto directtherespondentNos.5and6tocontroltheillegalactivitiesofthe respondentNos.Tto15,whoarecreatingthepanicsituationinrespectof venture of "srisailam and Pochaiah Venture" admeasuring to an extent of 225 Sq.yardsinPlotNo2linSy.No'240,24land242respectivelywhichissituated 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 225 Sq. yards pending disposal of the writ petition' IANO:2 OF 2025 Petitionunder"Sectionl5lcPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated intheaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto directtherespondentNos.5and6toprovideprotectiontothepetitionerlifeand libertyaswellasprotectiontothepetitionerSplotpropertytoanextentof225 Sq.yardsinPlotNo.2linSy.No.240,24land242respectivelywhichissituated at Shivaji Nagar (Srisailam and Pochaiah Venture), Kammaguda Village' under Turkayamjal Municipality, Abdulalpurrnet Mandal' Ranga t?eddy District' to protect the petitioner from the illegal activities of the respondent Nos'7 to 15 pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 6: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR w P 1 7 1 L4 TLOLT 11 a LLL79 COMMON ORDER: Since,the/isinvolvedintheseWritPetitionsisoneandthesame, theyarebeingtakenupforhearinganddisposalbythiscommonorder.

2.Heardlearnedcounselforthepetitioners,learnedGovernment Pleader for Home appearing for official respondents' and with the consent ofthelearnedcounselappearingfortheparties,boththeWritPetitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage' I

3.Havingregardtothenatureof/isinvolvedintheseWritPetitions andthemannerofdisposal,thisCourtisoftheviewthatnoticeto unofficial respondents in all the writ petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions' 4'Whenthemattersaretakenupforhearing,learnedcounselforthe petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respective reipondents, 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 prresent cases' 2

5. Recording the same, for reasons alike as were stated in the Writ Petition, videW.p.No.t0243 of 2025, dt.07.04.2025, and in terms thereof, the present writ petitions are arso 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.O7.O4.2O2S, to this order. 7 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. To, SD/-P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Sec Hyderabad, State retary, Home Department, Secretariat Building, Secretariat, of Telangana.

2. The Director General of police, Telagnana State, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Hyderabad. 4. The Deputy Cr:mmissioner. ol .police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, L.B. 5' The Assistant commissioner.of porice, Vanastharipuram circre, Rachakonda 6' The station House officer, Vanastharipuram porice Station, Rachakonda Commissionerate, Ranga Reddy Distri-&. Nagar Division, Ranga Reddy Districi. Commissionerate

7. One CC to SRt RAPOLU BHASKAR, Advocate tOpUCl 8. Two CCs to Gp FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at 9. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] ,"S,"nn s with the copy of order dated 07.04.2025, in W.p.No. 10243 of 2O2S) t \, A.riv #, HIGH COURT DATED: 1s10412025 l.t1 14st. r( ( Qi (j ,' 30 APB nT) i'\ ),i)'t.t COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.1 1AO7 , 11014, 110'17 ,11085 & 1 1 179 of 2025 ,,Tf ..l.,-./ )/' * Op DISPOSING OF ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS 6q'iu THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petation Nos.10243. 10268, 10307 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 /is involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.7 to 15 in all the Writ Petitions is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petitions.

4. The case of the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions, in brief, is that they are the 6ona 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, bo.,a de purchasers, they'are to be protected from interference being caused by the unofficial respondents herein, who are seeking to dispossesi 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 respondenG-authorities are not extending the required protection, which action of the respondents-authorities it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

7. per coDtra, 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 the subject property was subject matter of suit, yiae O.S.No.361 of 1984. B. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that the petitioners had purchased the subject property during the pendency of the proceedings before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction, vide O.S.No.361 of L984, which is ended in favour of the unofficial respondents herein.

9. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since the petitioners dr€ ps4(g4rs /ire 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 submlts that since, the unofflcial respondents herein have succeeded in the suit, the request of the petitioners fbr being provided with police protection to their life and liberlry as well as to their property cannot be considered by the authorities.

11. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the decree passed by the concerned Civil Court, in respect of the suit schedule property, yroe O.S.No.36 I of Lg84, 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. L2. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

13. Though the petitioners claim themselves to be bona ricte 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, yroe 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 pe4dens provided under Section 52. of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. t4. Further, the petitioners, who claim themselves to be 6ol,a de purchasers of subject plots/land, are required to assail the final decree dt.09.09.2024, il' 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, r,roe O.S.No.361 of 1984. 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 6ora ride purchasers, they are required to initiate action against their vendor and vendor's vendor, since, the sale deeds, under which the subject property has been purchased by them, provide for indemnity, in the event of any defect in title. . 17. For the above reason, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should be relegated to avail the civil remedies, against the judgment and decree dt.09.09.2024 in O.S.No.361 of 1984, instead of approaching the respondents-authorities and seeking for police protection, as noted above.

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

19. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. Date:07.04.2025 GJ T. VrNOD KUMA& l