Sri. Mudupu Raji Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana. The superintendent of Police, Ivlahabubabad' [\,4ahabubabad District' Telangana. The Station House Officer, Thorrur, tr/ahabubabad district. Telangana' The Revenue Divisional Officer, Thorrur, Mahabubabad district Telangana' The Tahsildar, Thorrur, Mahabubabd District. Telangana. Bachali f\/allaiah, S/o. B. Venkataiah Aged about.60 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Arrrprram (Post), Khanapur Villagem, Thorrur lt/andal, Mahabubabad District. Bachali Venkatesham, S/o. Muthaiah Aged about 45 years, Occ Agriculture nlo Arnn.,rprram (Post), Khanapur Villagem, Thorrur f\rlandal, firlahabubabad District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 lVlandamus to declare the action of Respondent Revenue and Police officials (Respondent No. 2 and 3) in not taking action against the Respondent No. 6 and 7, restraining them from interfering in to petitioner agricultural property to an extent of Ac.7.04 Gnts in sy.Nos.43 of Khanapuram village, Thorrur Mandal, Ivlahabubabad Telangana. District despite the order of this Hc 17.11.2021 passed in W.P No. 20634 of 2020 and de r injunction order in LA.No.520/2021 in O.S.No.23112021 ot Junior Civil Judge cum Judicial [\/agistrate of First Class at illegal, u ncon stitutio nal and violative of Article 3004 and cor lorable Court dated pite the ad-interim the file of Hon'ble -horrur as arbitrary, ;equently direct the Respondent Revenue and Police officials to protect the Peli oner of his life and his agricultural property to an extent o'f Ac.7.O4 Gnts in Sy.N; village, Thorrur [Vandal, It/ahabubabad district by restrair i No.6 and 7 from interfering in peaceful en.joyment of the subj: ;.43 of Khanapuram rg the Respondent rt property lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir: the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour. direct the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to provide the Poli; Petitioner restraining the Respondent No.6 and 7 from agricultural property to an extent of Ac.7.04 Gnts in Sy.Nc: village, Thorrur l\,4andal, I\ilahabubabad District pending J petition in the interest of justice .rmstances stated in may be pleased to : protection to the nterfering with the 43 of Khanapuram sposal of the writ Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MAGHAM MALLIKARJUN Il :DDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: SRI D. PRADEEP, I GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 : AGP FOR REVENIJ : Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 : Ms. D. ANKITHA, REPRT SENTING FOR SRI P. KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent No. 7: ---- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.19943 OF 2023 ORDER: This Writ Petition. is filed under Arlicle 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief/s:- ., to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of Respondent Revenue and Police officrals (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3) rn not taking action against the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7, restraining them from interfering in to petitioner's agricultural property to an extent of Ac7.04 guntas in Sy.Nos.43 of Khanapuram village, Thorrur Mandal, Mahabubabad Telangana District desprte the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 17.11.2021 passed in W.P No 20634 of 2020 and despite the ad-interim iniunction order in I A.No.520t2o2'l in o.s.No 23'112021 0n the file of Hon'ble Junior civil Judge-cum-Judrcial Magistrate of First Class at Thorrur as arbrtrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Article 300-4 and consequently direct the Respondent Revenue and Police officials to protect the Petitioner of his life and his agricultural property to an extent ot Ac.7.O4 guntas in Sy No.43 of Khanapuram village, Thorrur Mandal, Mahabubabad district by restraining the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 from interfering in peaceful enjoyment of the subject Property and may Pass "''

2. Heard Mr. Magham Mallikarjun Reddy, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistani Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos l to 3 and Ms'D'Ankitha' represenling Mr.p.Kiran, learned counsel appearing for respondent No 6'

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the respondent police officials have failed to take action against the unofficial respondents, who have been interfering with the petitioner's agricultural land, despite the existence of a direction of this Court in Writ Petition No. .i 2 20634 of 2020 and a temporary injunction order granted by rl3 Civil Court in l.A. No. 52O of 2021 in O.S. No 231 of 2021 on the file of th -' Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Thorrur' lt is cc rtended that despite these subsisting orders, the respondent police aulhor ies have not extended adequate protection to the petitioner' Accordingl't the learned counsel prays for appropriate directions and indulgence of thir; lourt' Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home 4. based on the petitioner's representation ' criminal case s registered, including a bind-over case against responde'r 15.07.2023. lt is further submitted that, in the absence cf direction from the competent court, police protection lli ubmits that, have been tNo.6on any specific s not been extended. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that t1 r respondent police authorities failed to act upon his grievance is unfound'-' learned Assistant Government Pleader prays for dismiss€ l. Hence, the of the writ petition.

5. I have perused the material available on record'

6. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the resp )ndent police authorities have failed to protect his property from alleged r lerference by the unofficial lespondents- It is noted that in Writ Petition '1o 20634 of 2020, filed earlier by the same petitioner, this Court had rT :rely directed that the respondent police authorities are at liberty to requ3 it the Station House Officer for providing necessary police protection wlt e conducting I survey and fixing boundaries. Thus, the petitioner's assertior hat this Court \ 3 had issued a specific direction for police protection does not find support from the record

7. As regards LA. No- 520 ot 2021 in O S. No 231 oI 202f it is evident that a temporary iniunction order was granted by the Civil Court restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's possession' however' the said suit rs still pending trial Admittedly' the petitioner has not approached the Civil Court seeking implementation or police aid for enforcement of the said interim injunction ' lt is a settled legal position that the extraordinary iurisdiction under 8. Nlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia cannot be invoked for enforcement or execution of a civil court's decree or order' when effective remedies exist before the Civil Court itself. The proper course for enforcement of an injunction order is to approach lhe same court or the executing court under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' rather than invoking writ jurisdiction. [See: Slate of Bihar v' Dhirendra Kumar' (1995) 4 SCC 229' Kanaiyatat Lalchand Sachdev v State of Maharashtra' (2011\ 2 SCC 782'l Accordingly, the prayer for police protection in this writ petition is not L maintainable. However, having regard to the submission that the interim application filed by the petitioner in the said suit (l A No 446 of 2024) is still pending consideration before the trial court, and that adjudication has been delayed, appropriate directions are warranted to expedite the matter' 4

10. ln view of the above, the grievance of the petitiorrr r merits limited consideration to the extent of ensuring expeditious adil dication of the pending interlocutory applic€tion. Accordingly, the learn -'d Junior Civil J udge-cum-Jud icial Magistrate of First Class, Thorrur is dir: Ied to prioritize the hearing and disposal of l.A. No. 446 of 2024 in O.S. \ t.231 of 2021, and to adjudicate the same as expeditiously as possible, t referably within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this ord,r .

11. The Writ Petrtion is disposed of in the above terms. '- rere shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand c I ,sed //TRUE COPY// SD/. C.DEEPIKA ASS STANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER '1 . The Principal Secretary. Home Department, Secretil at, Hyderabad, The State of Telangana, Telangana.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Mahabuba: rd, Ir,4ahabubabad District.Telangana.

3. The Station House Officer, Thorrur, Mahabubabad distr ( :. Telangana. 4. The Revenue Divisronal Officer, Thorrur, Mahabubabad r istrict. Telangana. 5. The Tahsildar, Thorrur, It4ahabubabd District. Telanganrr 6. One CC to SRI MAGHAIV IVALLIKARJUN REDDY, Ad r ,cate [OPUC] 7. One CC to SRI P. KIRAN, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State cf Telangana. [OUT] 9. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for thr: State of Telangana.

10. Two CD Copies To, b. PVL TKS td- Ei. HIGH COURT DATED:1811112025 ORDER WP.No.19943 of 2023 B4 [iC W - :i./ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\ *,p