The High Court · 2025

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 Writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of A,4andamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.2 to 4 in not considering and taking appropriate action on the complaints/rep resentations lodged by the petitioner dated 20.04.2025,08.07.2025, and 10.07.2025 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and violative of Article 14 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the Respondent No. 2 to 5 to consider the Complaint/representations dated 21 .O8.2025 dispose the same in accordance with law IANO:1OF2 02s Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circrJmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 4 to take action against all th I accused therein in Cr.No. 116 of 2025 on the file of respondent No. 4, furthr:r, to conclude the investigation in accordance with law Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. T. BALA MOHAN REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1to4: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos- 5to7: - The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition No.26O43 OF 2O2S ORDER: This writ petition is fiied seeking the foliowing prayer: ". . . declaring the inaction of the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not consideing and taking appropiate action on the complaints/ representations lodged by the petitioner dated 20.04.2025, 08.O7.2025 and" 1O.O7.2O25 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and uiolatiue of Article 14 and 30OA of Constitution of India and consequentlg direct Respondent Nos.2 to S to consider the Complaint/ representations dated 21.08.2025 dispose the same in accordance with latu. . . "

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. With their consent, this writ petition is taken up for disposal. Notice to respondent Nos.5 to 7 is hereby dispensecl u,ith.

3. The facts of the case in brief as stated are that petitioner's grandmother claims to be absolute owners and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.O 38 gts., 1n :i2:. Sy.No.i86/AA of Patti Viilage, Patarcheru Mandal , Sanga Reddy District acquired by u,ay of registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.l79l6 of 1982 dated 07.04.1982. After the death of petitioner's grar-rdmother, her three sons inherited the said property. Subsequent thereto, petitioner's father has become absolute orvner of said property due to relinquishrnent by one of the sons and death of another. it is submitted tlra,t one Mr.Vijay Kumar along s'rth his I'renchmen illegally tresp:rssed into the property and unlar,r'ful1r' erected iron sheets aloutncl the land. When the petitioner camc to knor.v that the said Mr.Vijay Kumar is claiming as ovl,ner of plot No- 185 of Patti Vill:rp;e, Patancheru Mandal, Sanga Reddv Di strict, and that petitio eer is owner of 186 lAA, to avoid ambiguitl., petitioner filed application before the Deputy Inspector of Surve_v, Sanga Redd1. )istrict seeking demarcation of land. Pursuant to the sam:, the Deputy Inspector of Survev conducted survey anr,l categorically confirmed that petitioncr land falls in Sy.No.186/ AA and not in Sy.No. 185. Insptie of that the said Vijay Kumar is trying to encroach the petitioner's property ::3::

4. Ou,ing to the said acts of Mr.Vijay Kumar, petitioner lodged a complaint before respondent No.4 police, whereby a Crime in Cr. No. 1 16 12025 was duly registered. The main grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 instead of acting on the complaint of the petitioner, had colluded with the henchmen of Mr.Vijay Kumar and is gaining interest over the petitioner's property and no action has been taken on the complaint ol thc petitioner. As such, petitioner has approached Civil Court b.,, instituting a suit in O.S.No.367 of 2O2S on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy District lor injunction and an I.A.No.4O6 of 2O2S was filed uncier Order XXXX Rules 1 and 2 of C.p.C. seeking interim injunction. Accordingly, the trial Court granted interim injunction. The petitioner also made a representation to Director General of Police, Telangana on OB.OZ.2O2S narrating all the incidents. Thereafter, on 10.O7 .2025 petitioner lodged another complaint to respondent No.4 with regard to frequent threats from the saicl Vijay Kumar. Hou.ever, no action has been taken by respondent Police. Questioning the same, the present u,rit petition is filed. i I I 7 .;+i;

5. The Sub Inspector of Poiice, BDL Bhanur Police Station has placed a copy of instructions through learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and would sultrnit that on the complaint of the petitioner datecl 20.O4.2025, respondent No.4 Police has conducted enquiry and register ed a Crime in Cr.No.1 16/2025 dated 22.O4.2025 under Section 329(31, 324(4), 115(2), 35i(2) of BNS against respondent Nos 6 and 7. During the course of investigation, respondent Police addressed a letter to Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal on 25.04.2O.lli for furnishing the ownership details of lands in S-y.No.185 anc 186. During the course of investigation, it u,as revealed that t here is a civil dispute betrrt,een the petitioner and unofhcial rerspondent Nos.5 to 7 and also a suit in O.S.No.367l2O2S on tl.r,: file of principal Junior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy District which is pending for adjudication. After completion of enquiry, the respondent police closed the complaint as 'Civil in Nature' on 15)'1 .2025 and the same was informed to the petitioner by post on 01.09.2025. It is further submitted that two cases \vere registcred against the petitioner on the complaint lodged by unoff:cial respondent Nos.5 to 7. It is further submitted that petittoner along with third parties have created nuisance, hence respondent No.4 5 made requisitions to RDO as r,r,ell as to the Tahsildar for taking necessary action in this regard under Section 164 BNSS to keep peace and tranquility

6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel on either side and without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 2O.O4.2O2S,Oa.OT.2O2S,hO.OZ.2O25 and take appropriate action on the subject issue by following due procedure as contem platecl uncler law. Needless to state that petitioner shall cooperate with the enquiry and may seek appropriate remedy in accordance to law.

7. W ith the above observations, this writ petition IS disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closcd. No costs. S D/-A. SRINIVASA R EDDY ASSISTANT REGIS TRAR NOTE: That the words et Operative portion of the order dated 2.9.2025 in w'p'No' 26043 0t 2025 .-are' aoaea 'ai -;i"pi"rlntrtion dated 20.04.2625, 21.ii.Zti1,;il,Jjfrrr;rzs; ". p"i"tnl"o,a."!.="Jr tre xo,uie-".1,J.,i.i,t"a 0""" oTSJ?,1T""Ji"""3:ir:fl;ll substitute the earrier order which has atready ud) - '?';ti=flNi"ffitEFRRX (? SECTION OFFICER / ,TRUE COPY// To, f *:,g5gf$:ftffi',$l*+ffi t^ ry/' BM BS ; ffi - HIGH COURT DATED:0210912025 25111t2025 \ AMENDED ORDER WP.No.26043 of 2025 --;; - '----.l-.=.. .-:-i ,1,: s i. ,r€.:.,). ,t'./ o_ ti -.: ., t-, i- r I irEt 206 ,,.,- t, _1i -(\ , f DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ 4 'l)' \t/