chilkuri Rajamanr Paila Ralamanr v. 1. The State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 ot lr|e 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, one more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus, a.Declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in calling the Petitioner to their office at Kamareddy and insisting her to settle the civil dispute i,e.o.SNo'6sof2o2lpendingonthefileofHonorableJuniorCivilJudge, Kamareddy at the behest of the Respondent No. 7, and interfering with life and liberty of petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary' contrary to law and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and b.consequently, direct the Respondent No.3 not to harass the Petitioner by calling her to their office, Kamareddy and to follow the due process of law. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petrtion under secticn 151 CPC praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petrtion, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents, Respondent No 2 & 3, to preserve and produce the CCTV footage of the entrance, waiting area and chambers of Respondent No 2 & 3 for the relevant dates r e 25-08-2025. 30 08-2025, 02-09 2025, and 08-09- 2025 and time period i.e.. from 10 AM to 7 Plvl. so as to ascertain the facts surrounding the alleged illeEal acts and coercive conduct. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl R.ANURAG Counsel for the Respondents No.'lto6 : ASST. GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents No.7 : The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR W'RIT PETITION No.28339 of 2025 ORDER: Ileard leamecl courrscl for the petitioner and learnecl Assistant Covernrncnt Plcaclcr fol Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6. With thcir consent, this r'r,rit petition is bcing takcn up for disposal

2. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.3 wl-ro has been callir-rg the petitioner to their office at Kamareddy and insisting her to settlc the civil disputes i.e., O.S.No.65 of 2021 pending on the file of learncd Jur-rior Civil Jurlgc, Kamarecldy at the behest of the respondent No.7, and interfering r.r,ith life and liberty of petitioner as being illegal, arbifrary, contrary to law and in vioiation of Articles 1,4 and 21, of the Constitution of India and consequently, seeking a direction to respondent No.3 not to harass the petitioner by calling her to their office at Kamareddy ancl to follow thc due process of law.

3. The brief facts of the case as stated in the affidavit are that the respondent No.7 along with others without having exclusive right or title over land adrneasuring Ac.2-12 guntas in Sy.No.263 (hereir-rafter referred as 'Property-A') and Ac.13-31 guntas ir.r Sy.No.5B7, 590 and 591 (hereinafter referred as 'Property-B') both situatcd in Yerrapahad village, Tadwai Mandal, Kamareddy District, has executed various conveyarce deeds that are illegal and unlawful and being aggrieved by such illegal and unlawful action \- 2 petitioner filed suit bearing O.S.No.65 of 2021 on the file of Junior Civil ludge, Kamarecldl,ancl cven us on date petitioncr claims that she is in possession of thc alorementioLred p:'opertl, ancl thc cxistcnce c,l such corrl'cyancc decds have corlc r hcr- kron,lcdgc onlv alk,l- the deurisc ol lrer husbanci on

09.11 2020. Ii is subrnittcd thal r'csponrlcut No.3 has been n-ris-using his authoritative a Lrcl responsiblc position to herrass the petitioncr, a senior citizen suffclir.rg frorr agc rclatecl ailmct-tts ancl clespite her conclilion, r'esponclent No.r h.rs bccir rcpcatedh' calling ;rnt1 askit.tg thc p.retitioncl to come to the pcrlicc station on 25 08.2025, 10.08.2025, 0209.2025 and 08.09.2023 and harassing her trv rnaking the petilioner sit tn thc ptemises for long hours

4. I l'rc pctitioner had earircr filetl a Wlit Petitior-r No 19314 of 2025 aggrieved b1, thc higir handed acts of the police officials, and this Court clisp()sc11 tl-rc sairl rvrit petition n,ith a dircction that invcsLigation bc carried otrt strictlf ir.r accorclance with ]an., without interierirrg in anv civil clisputes that nray sul.sist betn,ecn the petitioner artcl thc un-official resPondent. The responrlcnts therein had alleged that F.l.R vidc Crin-re No.87 of 2025 had been regisiered against thc petitioner but till Llate no noticc has bccn rcccived in respecl of the saicl crinlc. Being aggrievcd by the petitioner's rccourse to this Hon'ble Court, rcspondent No.6 deliberately acted n'ith malice in connivance with respondent No.7 and destroycd the petitioner's croP on 12.07.2025 by hiring tractor. It is submitted that when thc petitioner questioned the act of tractor o\.,ncr, hc replied that he ploughed the crop under the instructions of Sub-hrs;;cctol Murali (S.H-O. of Tadwai). Aggricvcd by this high handed 3 behaviour of SubJnspcctor Murali (S.H.O. of Tadwai), the petitioner had submitted representations to Chief Secretary, Secretary of l lome Dcpartmcnt, ancl DGP of Telangana, yet till date no actiorl has been taken against him Qucstior-ring the sante, the lrrescnt u.rit petition is f iled

5. Learned Assistant Covcrnmonl Pleader appcaring [or Homc submittcd thc instructions placecl br, thc Sub-lnspcctor of Policc, Tadr,r,ai Policc Station, Karnareclcl.r District r,r,lrelein it is suLmlitted that the petitioner had subrr-rittcd a pctition to D.C.l).'l clangana St.rtc, Hvclcr:rbad, which n,as forwardecl to Supcrintendent nf Policc, Karlarctlcly vicle D.C.P Officc lctk,r tlatecl 23.07.2025. Irr the pctition, the petitioncr stated that shc is the or,l,ncr ancl cultivator of lanc{ in Sv.No.263/3 aclmeasuring Ac.2-12 guntas which is ancestral propcrty of her lato husband and shc has been cultivating the lantl and has already filccl cir.il suit O.S.No.65 of 2021 beforc thc lcarned junior Civil Judge, Karnalccldy, n,hich is pencling adluclication. On 72.07.2025 at 07:00 PM Kurma Prashanth ar-rd Chilkuri Raji Redciy trespassed into the land ar-Ltl ploughed thc standing cotton crop at the behest of Sri Murali, S.H.O.Tadwai Policc Station and Sri Srinivas Rao, S.D.P.O.Ycllareddy and for thc past one mouth the S.D.P.O had been threatening and coercing the petitioner to vacate thc lancl, acting in collusion with thc opposing party. Despite submitting a complaint to the S-H.O, no action has been taken and petitioner submitted that the unlawful interfcrence of the S.H.O and S.D.P.O in a pending civil dispute amounts to rnis-use of official position, causing loss and damage and rcqucsted for an independent enquiry. \ \ ".\ 4

6. - It is subrnittecl thal .1s pcr thc instructions of Superintenrlent of Policc, thc S D.P-O.Kanr.rrcclci v took up cnquiry ancl called thc petitioner, her son antl l.rmi[r, nrt'nrLrcrs elong u'iih the allcgctl rt:spontients for conducting cnquirv anri rlrrrrng the courst, ol encluirr', it is itruncl that the agricullural larrtl in Sr,'No ]rl/3 ,rilntcasLrlirrg Ac.2-12 riuntas at Vcrr.rP.rhad vill.rrlr-. stautls in thc n,rnrt: of Sri Rakcsh Rcclcll, anrl u ith rcspcct kr lhc saicl survcl' rrunrl,cr a cir il 'rrit r irlt ().S.No.65 of 2021 is pt'r.tr1ine bckrrt' thc Coult of ILrnirrr Civi[ 1ur11,.i,, K.rurarcclth' ancl on vcrificirtion iI was rcvcalcd that thc S.I L().Iac1r,r'ai I)olicc Stalion antl the D.S. P.Ycllarc.ddv hervc actr.d rr.ithin thc krgaI rlarncrtolL.rntl tlischargcci t]reir official ciuties ancl a criminal casr. h.rs alrt'.r,-lr been rc;iistt'rcrl in I'a cl r,'u,a r Police Statiorr:rg.rinst the pctitiorrcr''s sor.r virlo (-rir-nc No.Sl of 2(125 urrdcl Sections 329 (3),324 (4) rcad with 3 (5) of BNS.rncl thc cnrluirv furthcr rcvcalcd that thc con-Lplaint subrnittecl br thc pctiti(Jncr is i.rlst,anrl Lrascless antl it is fourrtl that the pctitionor's son rs a tloul.lc rnorrgcr. ,rnrl h.rd trccn creating urlnoccssar\r clisputt's antl for thc purpr)sc of enelun v, thc: S.D.P.O called the pctitioner ancl hcr family mcurbcrs It rs ftrrthcr subrnitted th;rt aftcr enquirl', thc S.D-P.O, Kamarec]tlr has subnrrILecl report tlzrtcr: 09.t)9.2025 to the Supclintenclent ol Police and exccpt conclLrcting of crrtluirr,on the pctition given by the petitiorrcr, the S.D.P.O, Kamarcddt. has not f.rcssurizcd tl-re petitioncr to withdra\^, the civil suit bcarirrg O.S.No.65 of 2()21 pcr-rrling on the file of Court of Juniol Civil Judgc at Karnareddt'aucl not clircctccl to hand over the possession of the properties t<.r thc unofficial rcsl-roncient No.7 )

7. Recording the same, this writ petition is disposed of with consent directing the respondent authorities to strictly follow the due procedure as contemplated under law before taking any further action on the petitioner and subject propertics. ti. Wrth these obscrvations, this n rit pctition is clisposccl of Misccllaneous applications, if any pending, shall stancl closecl. No order as to costs SD/-S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO AS ISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The Principal Secretary Home Department Secre Hyderabad ECTION OFFICER n t, Telangana State

2. The Superintendent of Police, Kamareddy District' 3. The Additional Superintendent of Police' Kamareddy District' 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Yellareddy division' Kamareddy District' 5. The Crrcle-lnspector of Police, Sadashiva Nagar' Kamareddy District 6 The Station House Officer, (Sub lnspect' r of Police) Tadwai P S Kamareddy District 7 One CC to SRI R.ANURAG, Advocate. [OPUC] B, Two CCs to GP FoR HotvlE, High Court for the State of Telangana- [oUT] I Two CD CoPies b, BSK BS HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 ! ( oR TI-iE S !4 o o I * 2 3 fiAS 202[ * TC ORDER WP.No.28339 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0, 1 b b