Supreme CotLrt in Latitha Kumari v. State of Uttar pradeshr and taking note crf the judgments dated

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent No 4 in not providing the Police Protection to the Petitioner in respect of the land in Sy.Nos 3981A.312 admeasuring Ac O-21 Gts., in Sy.NO 400/A admeasuring Ac O-27 Gts., in Sy.No 4021A111, admeasuring AcO-12 Gts., Sy.No 405lA7lA, admeasuring Ac 0-34 Gts.. total admeasuring Ac 2-14 Gts., situated at Kondakal Village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in view of the dismissal of O.S.No 8712007. dt- 2810812014 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, as confirmed in AS NO 491201-. dt- 04-04-2019 on the file of Xll Addl. District Judge, Vikarabad, as being illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No 4 to forthwith provide Police Protection to the Petitioner in respect of the land in Sy.Nos 39BlA3l2 admeasuring Ac O-21 Gts., in Sy.NO 400iA admeasuring Ac 0-27 Gts., in Sy.No 402lA1/1, admeasuring Ac 0-12 Gts., Sy.No 405lA7lA, admeasuring Ac 0-34 Gts., total admeasuring Ac 2-14 Gts., situated at Kondakal Village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, in view of the dismissal of O.S.No 8712007, dt- 2810812014 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Chevella, as confirmed in AS NO 4912014, dt- 0410412019 on the file of Xll Addl. District Judge, Vikarabad. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praling that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 to provide necessary police aid to the petitioner in in respect of lands in Sy. No.398/A3/admeasuring Acs.0-21 guntas, in Sy.No.400/A admeasuring Acs.0-27 guntas, in Sy. No.405/A7lAadmeasuring Acs.0-34 guntas, totally admeasuring Acs.2-14 guntas, situated at Kondakal villae, Shankarpally Mandal, Ranga Reddv District. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 No 4 to forthwith provide Police Protection to the Petitioner in respect of the land in Sy.Nos 39BlA3l2 admeasuring Ac O-21 Gts., in Sy.NO 400/A admeasuring Ac 0-27 Gts., in Sy.No 4021A111 , admeasuring Ac 0-12 Gts., Sy.No 405/A7lA, admeasuring Ac 0-34 Gts., total admeasuring Ac 2-14 Gts., situated at Kondakal Village, Shankerpally 11i l andal, Ranga Reddy District, in view of the dismissal of O.S.No 8712007, dt: 2810812014 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Chevella, as confirmed in AS NO 49/2014, dl 0410412019 on the file of XII Addl. District Judge, Vikarabad, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4 : SRI R.LAXMIKANTH REDDY, . Counsel for the Respondents No.S : SRI P.BHASKAR RAO AGPFORHOME The Court made the following: ORDER -;.x:i=-v .'r ./ THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13722 OF 2021 ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No.4 - the Station House Officer, Shankarpally Police Station, in not providing Police protection to the petitioner in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-21 guntas in Survey No'3981A312, Ac.0-27 guntas in Survey No.400lA, Ac.0-12 guntas in Survey No.402lA1/1 and Ac.0-34 guntas in Survey No'4051A71A, totzl admeasuring Acs.2-14 guntas situated at Kondakal Village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, despite dismissal of suit in o.S. No.87 of 2007 videjudgment dated 28.08.2014 on the file of leamed Junior Civil Judge, Chevella (for short 'Trial Court') and confirmed in A.S. No.49 of 2014 vide judgment dated

04.04.2019 on the file of leamed XII Additional District Judge, Vikarabad, (for short 'Appellate Court'), as being illegal and arbitrary. 2 Heard Mr. Parsa Ananth Nageswar Rao, leamed counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, leamed Assistant 2 Govemment Pleader for Home for respondent Nos.l ro 4 and Mr. P. Bhaska-r Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5.

3. Learnecl counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.5 instituted a suit for injunction against petitioner and others in O.S. No.87 o1 2007 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0-26 guntas in Survey N,:.400/2 situated at Kondakal Village, Shankerpally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, i.e., suit property (a part of subject properly) which was dismissed by the Trial Court by judgrnent dated

28.08.2014. Petitioner is defendant No.5 in the said suit Subsequently, respondent No.5 preferred an appeal vide A.S. No.49 of 2014, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court by judgment dated 04.04.2019 confirming the judgment of the Trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that several complaints have been lodged by the petitioner with respondent No.4 requesting Police protection for implementation of the ludgment passed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court. Despite adverse judgment, respondent No.5 is interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property owned by the petitioner, which include the suit prypery Petitioner recently lodged fresh complaint dated 16'11'2024 seeking Police 3 protection for her ProPertY

5. Leamed counsel for respondent No'5 submitted that petitioner is not a decree holder, thus, relief sought in this writ petition cannot be granted. The dismissal of the suit is only on the ground that respondent No.5 was not able to demarcate and show the boundaries ofher land. The same does not give right to the petitioner to claim title over the property in the injunction suit' 'P"titio""t who is defendant cannot claim execution in the suit which is dismissed unless she files an independent suit and decree is passed therein' I I In view of the fact that the petitioner is one ofthe defendants

6. in O.S. No.87 of 2007 which was dismissed by the Trial Court and later was confirmed by Appellate Court in A'S' No'49 of 2014' this Court is not inclined to grant main relief sought by the petitioner' However, as it is stated that petitioner lodged fresh complaint on 16.11.2024 with respondent No'4, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 - the Station House Officer' Shankarpally Police Station, to act upon the complaint of the petitioner dated

16.ll.2[24in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble --:r*&&*l 4 Supreme CotLrt in Latitha Kumari v. State of Uttar pradeshr and taking note crf the judgments dated 28.08.2014 and, 04.04.2019 in O.S. No.87 of 2001 and A.S. No.49 of 2014 on the file of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court respectively. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in tht: writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.B.CHANDRA PRAKASH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I \-.) SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Secretariat, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chevella, Chevella, Hyderabad. 4. The Station House Officer, P.S. Shankarpally, Ranga Reddy District. 5. One CC to SRI PARSA ANANTH NAGESWAR RAO, Advocate. IOPUCI 6. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 7. One CC to SRI P.BHASKAR RAO, Advocate. [OPUC] B. Two CD Copies. BSI(BSK t I 1zo r+y z scc r HIGH COURT BVR,J DATED:2010112025 t CC TODAY a -,:=::: \ its- s T 1 k + o r-) 21 lrt 2[?5 .ti .* a. ,. , \--- ORDER WP.No.13722 ot 2021 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 2\ il/- lo-u