District, T.S v. S/o. A. Muthvam Reddv, Aged about

7. Sri Thummala Prasad Reddy, S/o. Rajeshwar Reddy, Aged about. S5years, Occ. Businesi, Ano.l-Zq, P6bchara village, Mandal, Laimanchanda Mandal, Nirmal District, f.S. 8. Sri A. Sriram Redd Service, No.1-24, District, T.S. v. S/o. A. Muthvam Reddv, Aged about. 38 years, Occ' Pvt Peechara villale, Mandai, Laxmanchanda Mandal, Nirmal ...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 pass an order or orders for under WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent No. 4 to 6 for interfering into Petitioner's Personal Life and Liberty by calling the petitioner to police staiion regularly and threatening the petitioner to implicate false cases only upon the instigation o1'respondents No. 7 & 8, with regard to the properties i.e., Land bearing Sy No. 19212, admeasuring about Ac. 5-04 gts situated at New Lingampally Village, Mamda Mandal, Nirmal District, Telangana State., and declare the action of the respondents are illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the provision of principal of natural justice, violation of Article, 19, 21 and 300-4 of the constitution of lndia. 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 No. 4 to 6 not to interfere into the Petitioner's personal Life and Liberty including calling the petitioner to police station regularly and harassing to settle the matter with respondents No. 7 and 8 atso threatening him to implicate false cases with regard to the property i.e., i.e., Land be,aring sy No. 19212, admeasuring about Ac. 5-04 gts situated at New Lingampally Village, Mamda Mandal, Nirmal District, Telangana State. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt SURESH SH|V SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6: AGp FOR HOfUE Counsetfor the Respondent Nos.7 and g:-- The Court made the following: ORDER t !'. THE HONOUI{AltLE SRI IUS'IICI: N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WIITT PETITION No.24893 of 2025 ORDER This writ petition has been filcd seeking the following prayer:- "lo declore tlrc Ltcttott of tlu respontlent No.4 to 6 for interfering into Petitioners Personttl Ltfe and Liberty by calling the petitioner to police station regularly und threntening tlrc petitioner to implicate false cases only upon the instigation of respondents No.7 and B, roith regard to the properties i.e., Lnntl benring,sy Nb.l92/2, admeasuring about Ac.s-04 gts, situntt'd nl Ncir [-ingtntpnllry villttge, Mttmda Mandal, Nirmal District, T'elnngant sttte, nnd decltre tlrc action of the respondents are illegal, nrbitrury, Luk:ottstitrLtionnl ind ngninst the proaision "f principal of natunl justice pioLtttiott o.f Article 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constittttion o,f ln d ia."

2. Brie'f facts statecl irr this r,vrit pr:tition are that petitioner claims to be owner and possessor of lancl acirneraisuring Ac.5-04 guntas in Sy.No.192/2, situated at new L,inganrpallv Villagc, Marncla Mandal, Nirmal District. The case of the petitioner is that the rc..;p()nclcnt Nos.7 and 8 with an intention to purchase the subject propertv approarchecl the petitioner and offered Rs.55,08,000/- as sale consideration and by paying an advance of Rs.7,50,000/- entered into sale agreemcnt clated 15.09.2022and agreed to pay balance sale consideration instalments. Later, when respondent Nos.7 and 8 failed to pay balance sale consicleration, petitioner issued legal notice dated

77.07.2025. Further case of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.4 to 6 are regularly calling the petitiouer, intcrfering with the dispute between the petitioner ancl responcleni NIos.7 anc{ 8 and arc threat.ening her to settle the dispute r,r,ith rcspondcnt Nos.7 and 8. Aggrieveci bv the same, this writ petition is filecl. t t 2

3. Leanred Assistant Government Pleac{cr [r;r' Ilornc appearing fo;*r respondent l\os.1 to 6 placed on recorcl instructions issucd br,Sub-llspector of Police, Mamda Police Station, Nirmal District, Wherein it is stated that subsequent lo filing of the writ petition, the resp'rsp1{g1rt No.5 verifie<l the station records and it was revealed that as o[ l1o\,v, no cornplaint/F'lR is registered/pending against the petitioner or r,vith reqarcl to tl-re subject property. Hence, the question of calling the petitioner to the police station and harassing her does not arise.

4. Heard learned counsel for thc pctitioner arnd Sri.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for l{ome apFrearilrg for rcsponc{cnt Nos.1 to 6 and perused the material arzailable ol1 recor.ti.

5. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner in thc uzrit aificlavit atieged that respondent Nos.4 to 6 are regularlv calling her ancl arc interfering with the civil dispute between the petitioncr and resproirclent \os.7 and 8 and are threatening trer to settle the dispute with responclgnt Nos.7 ancl g. On perusal of record, it is noticed that the petitioner had not placerl anv proof against such allegation and just had filed the writ petition rvrth such aruerments. Hence, the rvrit petition heing dcvoid of rnerits fails arrc] is tiable t6 be dismissed.

6. For the above reason, this rvrit petition is clisnri:;:;ecl. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stancl closeti. Nrt orclcr as tcl cc.rsts. //TRUE COPY// Sd,.T.SRINIVAS REDDY aEErdrArqr RiGlsrRARe SECTION OFFICER i t To 1 oneCCtoSrisureshShivSagar,AdvocatetoPUC] \

2.TwoCCstoGPforHome,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana,at HYderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD CoPies TJsA YD- \ HIGH COURT DATED i2210812025 6t ORDER WP.No.24893 ot 2025 ,l $, (- F e C) .21/ r-,1' -i ilE S I,i I.rq ,(\ rJ 03 DrC flffi * f:rr i 4 ./1 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS A. \t y{ ( 6