The High Court · 2025

6. Janga Srinivas Reddy,, S/o.Janga Ram Reddy, Aged Around 54 years, Occ Service, D.No.9€-109/1, Padma Nagar, Karimnagar, Telangana-s0s 001 . 7. Chenna Reddy, S/o Janga Ram Reddy, Aged Around 52 years, Occ Service, D. No.9-8-'l 09/1, Padma Nagar, Karimnagar, Telangana-sos 001 . ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, rnore particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actbn of the Respondent No-3 in interfering with the peaceful possession of Petitioner's land in Sy.No.1371lD adm.1 Acre 16 guntas situated at Siwar of Ko{onoor V/o Odela Mandal, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 21 of the Constitution of lndia and c,l tsequently direct the Respondent no.3 not to interfere in petitione/s peaceful 1x ssession of the land and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Cot rt may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. l.A. NO: 1OF 2017 (WPMP. NO: 23684 OF 20171 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the :ircumstances stated in the affidavit fil6d in support of the petition, the High CoL t may be pleased to grant interim direction directing the Respondent No 3 to consider my representation d1.12.O5.2O17 for cutting paddy crop in my rnd in the interest of justice- Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D S KISHEN REPRESENTII G SRI VV SRI PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondents No 'l To 3: SRI G ANIKETH ll EDDYAGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No 4: SRI G NARENDER REll DY SC FOR GRAM PANCIT AYAT Counsel for the Respondents No 5 To 7 -- The Gourt made the following: ORDER r-') THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITIO N No. 19437 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Articb 2m of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: ".-.to issub a Wit, Order or Direction, more padiculady, one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent I'1o.3 in inteieing with the paceful possessrbn of petitionels tad in Sy.No. 1371/D adm.1 Acrc 16 guntas, situated at Siwar of Kolonoor V/o Odela Mandal, as ahitnry, illegal, violative of Articles 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent No. 3 not to inteiere in my peaceful possession of the land and pass such other order or orders as fhrs Hon'ble Couft may deem fit and ptqer in the interest of iustice..."

2. I have heard Mr. D.S. Kishen, learned counsel, representing Mr. V.V. Sriprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G. Aniketh Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalfof respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as respondent No. 3 has been interfering with the petitioner's peaceful possession of his landed property, the present Writ Petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions from this Court.

4. Learned Assistant Governrnent Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that respondent No. 3 has nener interfered with the petitioner's I possession, as alleged. lt is further submitted that, upon a complaint 2 lodged by the petitioner, the police conducted an enqr iry and, finding the dispute to be civil in nature, advised the petition. to approach the competent civil court for effective redressar ( f his grievance. Accordingly, it is contended that the petition is devoi<l of merit and liable to be dismissed.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that respond: rt No. 3 has been interfering with his peaceful possession of the subjecr and. The stand of the respondents, however, is that no such interferen,) ) has taken place and that no criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner. ln the absence of cogent evidence substantiating the a I ped interference, this court finds no material warranting interfurence i r exercise of writ jurisdiction. Nevertheless, having regard to the petitiorr rr's assertion and in recognition of the limited jurisdiction of the police, it is clarified that respondent No. 3 sharr not, in any manner, interfere lv th the petitioner,s possession of the land, save and except in strict accorcli Lnce with law.

7. With the above direction, the Writ petition is drposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. PeMing misqgllaneous apptications, if qlts_hgllt tand closed. SD,'. P.C. SULEKHA DEVI AS REGISTRAR EISTANT //TRUE COPY// \ $iEcTloN OFFICER To, 1 Iffi J.:i:f€f..3[rita ry, Horne Depa rtment, state or re t, nsa na, secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Superintend of police, peddapalli District, Telangana. 3. The Station House officer, pS surtanaba, odera Mandar, peddapaili District, a J!,e SarOanglr. G^o^parpally, Kolonoor post, Odella Madal, pedapalty District, 5. One CC to SRt V V SRt PRAKASH Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to Gp FOR HOME ,High Court forthe State of Telangana at r etangana-sos 162. Hyderabd. [OUT]

7. One CC to SRt c NARENDER REDDY SC for Gram panchayat 8. Two CD Copies tOpUCI E.N PVL -!k* \ I HIGH COURT DATED:04/0912025 a \ \ l I ORDER WP.No.19437 of 2017 R.' ES ,-A I o 2 t trN 2026 * ---/ \c' './ )4l, I I ( .. .,,/ t I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS JKS l? l,l :A