Kaleru Dhanalaxmi v. The State of Telangana

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 issue a Writ of f\ilandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the respondents in not providing police protection to the land in view of orders of the Honble High Court in W.P. No. 17570 of 2015 as illegal, arbitrary, and unreasonable and consequently direct the respondents to provide the police protection to the petitioners land admeasuring Ac 3-27 its in Sy No. 528, situated at Uppaka Village of Pinapaka f\ilandal, Bhadradri Kothegudem District. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Between: Kaleru Dhanalaxmi, D/o. Konderu Shankaraiah Aged about 35 1:ars, Occ: Agriculture,R/o. Uppaka Village, Pinapaka Mandal, Bhadradri I i thegudem District ....Peti1 r rers Petitioners AND 1) The State of Telangana Rep.by Principal Secretary llome Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 22. 2) The Superintendent of Police, Badradri Kothegudem Distric ' at Kothegudem' 3) The Station House Officer, Edulla Bayyaram Police Static r Bayyaram X Road, Pinapaka Mandal, Badradri Kothegudem District. 4) Podem Kameshwar Rao, Agriculturist, Fl/o. Bandigiri Kothegudem District. -...ResPonde r ::;/ResPond ents. S/o. Late Nagaram, Ramaiah Village Aged rklut 50 years, Occ: Pinapak e [v1andal, Badradri 5) Podem Kiran Kumar @ Chanti, S/o. Late Papa Rao, Age< :bout 26 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, FVo. Bandigrri Nagaram, Village Pinapzk: lr4andal, Badradri Kothegudem District. 6) Podem Sri Lakshmi, W/o. S/o. Late Papa Rao, Aged abotrl 't5 years' Occ: Daily Labour Rl/o. Bandigiri Nagaram, Village Pinapaka [\4andal, [:rdradri Kothegudem District. Proposed Respondent F € icondents 6 to 8 Petition under 16 A of Writ rules CPC praying that I 1 the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, thr r fligh Court may be pleased to implead the Proposed Respondents as Resp I t lent No. 6 to 8 in W.P.No. 29286 of 2017. l.A. NO: 1OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 36443 OF 20171 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the { i-cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co r t may be pleased to direct the respondents to provide the police protection t( t 1e petitioner's land 7 admeasuring Ac 3-27 Gts in Sy No. 528, situated at Uppaka Village of Pinapaka l\ilandal, Bhadradri Kothegudem District, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P VISHNUVARDHANA REDDY ( NOT PRESENT) Counsel for the Respondents No 1 To 3: SRI M SRINIVAS AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N.] IJKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.29286 OFt 11)17 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 2.,- , of Corutitution of India seeking the following relief/s:- "... to issrc a \Y/rir of Mandamus or any other appropriate wri declaring dre action of rhe responderts in not providing polic r land in vierv of ordcs of rhe Honble Lhgh C.oun il \V P N illeg. artrirran .urd urLreasor ulrlr .ud c,,n.eqrrenrly direcl r provide the police protection to the petirionen land aclneasur .r No 528 situted at Uppaka Vill:ge ol I,inapakr Ma.ndal Bhat r District zurd pass..." rder or direcrion ;r<nection to the ,'520 of 20 15 as respondents to Ac 327 its irl Sy cri Kothegudem 2 None appeared for the peritioner.

3. Fleard learned Assistant Govemment P r ader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 ro 3.

4. The leamed Assistant Govemment Plt ; cler for Home submim that, upon verification of the factual (i(:urnstances, the respondeff-police authorities have ascerrained tlLr t the Additional Agent to Govemment and Project Officer, ITDI, Bhadrachalarq passed an order dated tz.o9.2oog in cM.A )to.45 of 2011, reiecting the petitioner's claim. It is further submi; e d that although 2 \t-- \. \\r the petitioner preferred a revision agairst the said order, no decision has yet been rendered thereon. Meanwhile, the Additional Agent to Government and Project Officer issued directions rc the Tahsildar, Pinapaka Mandal, to talrc possession of the land from the petitioner and hand the sarne to the pattedar Consequendy, it is contended that the petitioner is not legally entitled to possession of the disputed land. As the allegations of interference with the petitioner's land are not substantiated, no further action 'was considered necessary by the respondent authorities. Ffunce, it is submitted that the writ petition is ]iable to be dismissed.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. fu this stage, Mr. Vamshi, leamed counsel for the petitioner, appeared and submitted that he was r.rnable to aftend the rnatter earlier and requested an adjoumment. F{ov/evet upon penrsal of tJre record, this Clurt frnds it appropriate to proceed with the firntter on ments. J

7. The material placed before this courr indicat: that the relief sought by the petitioner penains to the grant of p I ice protection, c in view of the earlier order passed in \f.P. No. 17li '() of 2015, the operative portion of which reads as follows: 'i..For the aforesaid reasons, this \{/rit Petition is disposed c the first respondent to pass appropriate orders, on the n I 76.02.7075 filed by the petitioner herein agairst the onJen t f respondent in CIr4-ANo.45l2011, dated 24.01.2015 in n s lands admeasuring Ac.3.Z7 guntas in Survey No.528 siruatr < Village of Pinapaka Mandal, Khammam District, within : three (3) months from the &te of receipt of a copy c I Till the aforesaid exercise atains finaliry the interim orier granted by this Crun on 78.06.2075 shall continue. Ther' orrder as to costs... " r directing sion dated rie second x:ct of the :Lt Uppaka period of this order. tl slatus qto ;hall be no

8. The q,ritten submissions of the respondents i; clarifying that the CM.ANo .45/2}tl has been disposed of and I Lt: revision filed by the petitioner has not been positively considerec rnd thereafter, the Additional Agent to Govemment & Project -Xficea ITDA Bhadrachalam had passed aPProPriate orders or taking the I I possession of the land from the petitioner. There[ )re it is evident from the that the contention as to interferenc I seeldng police direction has no basis. In rr#, the factual positrc rt, the prayer of ! 4 \ the petitioner for granting police protection stands ursubstantiated by any tenable material. 9 For that reason, the prayed of the petitioner cannot be considered. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, the right of the petitioner is reserved in accordance with law in regard to the dispute before the appropriate Court, if so desires

10. Accordingly, this Vrit Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if afly, shall stand closed SD/- A.H.S.GOWRI SHAN SISTAN TRE R //TRUE CoPY// i TION OFFICER To, 1 2 One CC to SRI P VISHNUVARDHANA GP FOR HOME Two CCs to ouTl Hyderabad. I REDDY Ad High Court for the ta CA e [oPUC] of Telangana at

3. Two CD CoPies DAN BSR HIGH COURT DATED:2510912025 1 ! ORDER WP.No.29286 of 2017 1 l'r l4 ! I o(J - .) /l r I ?f17fi z c) I + -Sr, * ..O DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ a.u