The High Court · 2025

The Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda Division, Nalgonda District- The Station House Officer, Il Town Police Station, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. Papatla Yadamma, W/o Yadagiri Reddy. aged about 48 years'-Occ Housewife. FVo H. No. 6- 173, Bajakunta Village. Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District. K. Jaya Reddy, W/o Srinivas Reddy. aged abor-rt 46 years, Occ Housewife. R/o Bala Saraswathi Nagar, Near Pochamma Temple, Ivlalkajgiri, Hyderabad Konreddv Bhaovamma. W/o Ranqa Reddy, aged about 67 years, Occ Housewiie, nyd H. ruo. 7- 5- 154. Panagal, Nalgonda Town and District. Gaddam Venkat Reddy, S/o Papi Reddy, aged aboul4T years,-Occ Home Gaurd, Rl/o 9th Ward, Panagal Village,- Nalgonda Mandal and District. 10. Boddupally Laxmi, W/o Late B. Sreenivas, aged.about !8 years, 9!g f.*, Municifal bhairperson, Fl/o Savarkar Nagar, Nalgonda Town and District. B I 7 1 1. Boddupally Lingamma, W/o Late Buchaiah, aged about 75 years, Occ household. F:/o Savarkar Nagar, Nalgonda Town and District

12. Boddupally Laxmi Prasanna, D/o Late B. Sreenivas, aged about 26 years, Occ H6us6hold, Rl,/o Savarkar Nagar, Nalgonda To\/n and District-

13. Boddupally Amarnath, W/o Late B. Sreenivas, aged about 20 years, Occ Employee, FJo Savarkar Nagar, Nalgonda Town and District .';tf-*-.i ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnrjia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Higl- rlourt may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the rri,,ture of [t/andamus by declaring the action of the Respondent No. 5 in non- followir 3 the directions of the Hon'ble Court in L A No. 590 of 2022 in O. S. No. 221 ol 2)13 on the file Senior Civil Judge Court at Nalgonda and non- initiating to prr:,r,ide the protection to conduct the survey and fix lhe boundaries as per the respe;ctive shares between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 6 to 8 and non- initiatin:t to control the illegal activities of the Respondent No. 6 to 13 and their henchmea who are creating the patiic situation at the time of conducting the survey and dernarcation and fixing the boundaries and also non- providing the protection to the hc vocate Commissioner to implement the Decree and Judgment in O. S. No. 22'l <:t 2013 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitu tion al and violation of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and also violation of the Principles of Natural Jus.rce and consequently direct the Respondent No. 5 to implement the directions o{ .he Senior Civil Judge Court at Nalgonda in l. A. No. 590 of 2022 in O. S. No. 221 of 2013 and by considering the representation of the Advocate Commissiot-t:-'r dated 14- 06- 2025 and to provide the protection to conduct the survey and fi>: the boundaries to the Suit Schedule Property, by controlling the illegal activities o'-he Respondent No. 6 to 13 and their associates lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petrtion under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r;ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Co.rd may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 5 to implement the directions of lhe Senior Civil Judge Court at Nalgonda in l. A. No. 590 of 2022 in O. S. Nc. 221 of 2013 and by considering the representation of the Advocate Commissionr;r dated 14- 06- 2025 and to provide the protection to conduct the survey and fix the boundaries to the Suit Schedule Property, by controlling the illegal activities c{ -he Respondent No. 6 to 13 and their associates, pending disposal of Writ Petiti<;rr and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Cou( may deem fit and prope r in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: SRI B. SRIDHAR l\GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 13: --- The Court made the following: ORDER ':a:i::# I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.2225 4 0F 2025 ORA L ORDBR Heard leamcd counsel for the petitioner and Mr' B' Sridhar' leamed Assistant (;ovemment Plcader for Horne appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. I to 5.

2. The petitioner lras filed a suit in O S No'221 of 2013 against rcspondcnt Nos.6 to 13 seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedule property. Learned Scnior Civil Judge at Nalgonda decreed the samc on 14.09 -2022. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I'A' No.590 of 2022 in O.S. No-221 of 2013 seeking appointment of advocate commissioner for passing final decree pursuant to the said preliminary decree. The same was allowed on 29 '04 '2025 ' The trial Court appointed Mr. G.S. Chakravarthy, Advocate as Commissioner to pass final decree proceedings by conducting survey etc' Vide letter dated 14.06.2025, leamcd Advocate Commissioner requested respondent No.5 to providc police aid for execution of warrant of commission as the defendanm came to the site and obstructed survey work. Even then, respondent No.5 did not provide police aid to the ) \ 7 I *ai - 2 W l'] KL.J 22254 ol202i ^-o Advocale Commissioner. Therefore, agerieved bv thr: said inaction of respondcnt No.5, thc petitioner filed thc present writ or:tition.

3. Whereas, lcamed Assistant (iovcmmcnt l)|,.:ader lor Home has produced written instructions of Sub-lnsplx)ror of policc, Nalgonda-II Town Police Station stating thai the Advocate Commissioner requested respondent No.5 to proi,idc p olice aid for the purpose o1' conducting survcv and cxecution <,1 commission. Rcspondent No.5 has already deputcd one Mr. N. Sudhakar, ASI of Police on 19.07.2025. The Advocate Commissioner or:,nducted survey and fixed boundaries. Thereforc, thc allegation of th,:, petitioner that rcspondent No.5 did not provide police aid t,., rhe Advocate Commissioner is factually incorrect. -l'he said written instructions are placed on record.

4. In the light of thc above submissions, thc ;rerigionsl is ,.1 entitled for any reliel, much Icss thc reliel sought in tJre present writ petition. 'Ihcrefore, this writ petition is liable to be disrnissed.

5. This writ petition is accordingly disrrrissed. In the circumstanccs of the case, there shall be no order as tc (,osts. ) KL-J W P No.22254 0f2025 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6- SECTION OFFICER To, One CC to SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 1 2 \ 3 KKS bJ Two CD Copies 6 HIGH COURT DATED:3010712025 I { I ..1',^ /,,.'<' \ '18 i r4r e o; ii Ii srP 2025 t:... '. \. 11 I I I ORDER WP.No.22254 o12025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \