The High Court · 2025

7. tMrs. Vijayantimala P.D. Shah, Wo. Mr. P.D. shah, Aged about 61 years, Occ. Household,

8. Mr. Amrish, S/o.-Govind Das, Aged about 33 years, occ. Business, 9. [Vlr. Viren, Sio. Govind Das, Aged about 33 yearc, occ. Business,

10.tMr. Nilersh, S/o. Mr. Nandu Bhai N. Shah, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Business, All the respondent nos. 7 to 10 are R/o. G.No.4-6-465, Esamia Bazar, Koti, Hy'derabad - 500027.

11. Mr. [V:ldhusudhan, Sub-lnspector of Police, Vanasthalipuram P.S., Ruthuberzar Road, Hastinapuram colony, NGo colony, vanastalipuram, Hyderabad - 500070. ...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 issrle appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus" i. ii. Decli:ring the action of the respondents 7to10 in demolishing the property by engaging various persons at their behest as illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to the orders passed by the Court below in os ttlo. 83 of 2014 dated 20.08.2015 and direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners' property; Direct the respondent 1to4 to take immediate disciplinary action into the unlavrrful and illegal action of the Respondent No. 11 in permitting and partic;ipating in the demolition of the petitioners' property; iii. Direct Respondent No. 1to4 to grant police protection to the petitioners 2:.017 1 Petition rnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumbtances stated in the affidavit fil:d in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 to 4 to grant police protection/police aid to the petitioners penrJing disposal of the Writ Petition l.A. NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 784 OF 2017) Petition ttnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to interfere with thre peaceful possession of the petitioner's property bearing plot No. T 53, admeas;uring 200 sq.Yards in survey No. 213 to 217, situated at Khamaguda, Turkayamzal Village, Hayath Nagar Revenue Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition l.A. NO: 3 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 785 OF 2017) 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. 1 to 4 to immediately suspend respondent No.11 , pending any enquiry that may be instituted in relation to the illegal acts committed in relation to the illegal acts committed by Respondent No. 11 pending disposal of the Writ Petition l.A. NO: 9 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 35s16 OF 20171 Between

1. Smt. Chelamalla Manjula, W/o. Sri Ch. Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged 36 years, Occ. Housewife

2. Shri. A. Lavkhusha Reddy, S/o. A Buchi Reddy, Aged 34 years, occ. Pvt. Employee, Both are R/o. Plot No.T-53, Sri Rangapurarn Colony, Kammaguda Gram Panchayat, Turkamjayal, Hayathnagar Mandal, R.R. District. AND ...PETITIONERS

1. State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govemment, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of Police, z Government of Telangand State. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 5. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanastalipuram - P.S., Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

6. The Station House officer, Vanastalipuram Police Station, Cyberabad, Hyderabad

7. Mrs. Vijayantimala P.D. Shah, Wo. Mr. P.D. shah, Aged about 61 years, Occ. Household,

8. Mr. Amrish, S/o.-Govind Das, Aged about 33 years, occ. Business, 9. [/r. Viren, Sio. Govind Das, Aged about 33 years, occ. Business,

10.Mr. Nilesh, S/o. Mr. Nandu Bhai N. Shah, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Business, All the respondent nos. 7 to 10 are R:/o. G.No.4-6-465, Esamia Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad - 500027.

11. tMr. [Vladhusudhan, Sub-lnspector of Police, Vanasthalipuram P.S., Ruthubazar Road, Hastinapuram Colony, NGO Colony, vanastalipuram, Hyderabad - 500070.

12.The District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District.

13.The Panchayat Secretary, Kammaguda, Hayathnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS Petitiorr 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 implead the District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District as respondent no.12 and Sri Tej r;ingh, Panchayat Secretary, Kammaguda vilalge of Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal as respondent No.13 Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. UWAIS ZUBAIR SAIT REP SRI TARUN G. REDDY Counselfor the Respondent Nos. 1to6: SRI R. LAXMIKANTH REDDY, AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent 7to10: SRI K. ASHOK REDDY Counselfor the Proposed Respondent: AGP FOR PANCHAYAT Counsel for the Respondent No.11:-- RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT 7 ORDER: This Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: ,....fol.ssueanyVl/rit,orderordirectionmoreespeciallyoneinthe nature af writ of Mandarnus declaring the action of the Responderrts 7 to 10 in demolishittg the propetty by engaging varnuspersons at their behest as itlegal and contrary to the orders passed by the trial court in oS ,vo.B3 of 2014 dated 20.08-2015 'and direit the respondents not to interfere ,vith the possession of the petitioners' property anrl direct the respondents 1. to 4.to take immediate action and'to grant poilce'pratection to the petitioners and to pass. .... "

2. Heard Mr. Uwais zubair sait, learned counsel representing Mr.G.Tarun Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6.

3. The contention of the petitiorters is that respondent Nos'7 to 10 (unofficial respondents) demclished thei:' propepty by endaging certain persons, in vioiation of the orders passed in o.s. No.83 of 2014, dated

20.08.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the demolition was carried out in the presence of and with the support of the police authorities. The petitioners assert that the sequence of events that occurred at the relevant time l',as been detailed in the affidavit filed before this Court. A report was also sr-rbmitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, seeking disciplinary action against respondent *nd 2 No.11 (police authorities) for their alleged participation in the demolition of the p,etitioners' property. However, the said complaint was left unattenderd, and the petitioners were not informed of any action taken by the authorities. lt is therefore prayed that a direction be issued requiring intimation of the disciplinary action taken, if any, against respondert No.'l 1. Apart from this, the petitioners submit that this Court had earlier granted an interim order restraining the unofficial respondents from interfering in the disputes between the petitioners and respondent Nos.7 to 11. On these grounds, appropriate directions are sought.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the police authoritier; had no role in the demolition. He clarifies that on 29.12.2016, pursuant :o a representation from the Panchayat Secretary and on the explanation furnished by the Panchayat Secretary that, as per the directives of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District, the Panchayat had resolved to demolish illegal constructions in Survey Nos.213 t.o 217, police assistance was sought to maintain law and order. Accordingly, a police team comprising two Sub-lnspectors, one Assistant Sub-lnspector, one Woman Constable, and two Constables was deputed to the site solely for maintaining law and order. The police officers did not participate in the demolition, as alleged by the petitioners. Rather, their role was limited to providing necessary security to enable the Panchayat to carry out its official duties. lt is further a J submitted that one of the police officers subsequently registered a case, resulting in FIR No.966 of 2016. A charge sheet was filed therein, and C.C. No.92 of 2018 is presently pending trial before the Court of the Vll Additional tMetropolitan l'/agistrate, Hyderabad. Thus, respondent No.11, or any police personnel, had no involvement in the demolition of the property beyond rendering assistance for maintaining peace and order.

5. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents submits that the allegations leveled against them are unfounded and are based only on vague and unsupported statements.

6. I have perused the materials on record.

7. The petitioners contend that, at the behest of respondent No.11, the police authorities not only permitted but also actively participated in the demolition of their property. However, the explanation offered by the police in their counter affidavit makes it evident that their presence at the site on the relevant date was solely pursuant to a representation seeking police protection for maintaining law and order. The police have categorically asserted that they had no role in the demolition itself, which was carried out by the Panchayat Secretary in pursuance of a resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat. ln view of this, the petitioners' allegation regarding the involvement of respondent No.1 1 or the unofficial respondents in the demolition is found to be a self-serving assertion, unsupported by any credible or independent evidence- .--. I i l ! 4 B. Vy'ith respect to the complaint lodged by the petitioners before the Assistarrt Commissioner of Police on 31 .12.20'16, seeking disciplinary action .rgainst respondent No.'l 1, it is to be noted that the said report does not disclose material warranting the initiation of disciplinary proceeclings. Whether such action is required or not falls within the exclusir e prerogative of the competent authority. lf the petitioners were aggriev()d by the alleged inaction of the police in registering a crime on the basis of their complaint, their remedy lay in invoking the statutory mechanisms provided under rhe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such as filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictionai Magistrate or pursuing remedies under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for a private complarnt. The Supreme Court has consistently held that when an alternative statutory remedy is available, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is generally not maintairrable for seeking directions regarding registration of a case (see Sakiri Vasu y Sfale of U.P , (2008) 2 SCC 409). ln light of the binding precedent, the petitioners' grievance regarding the inaction of the police is not sustairrable in writ jurisdiction.

9. Bt: that as it may, this Court had earlier granted an interim order restrainirrg the respondent-poiice authorities from interfering in the disputes between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents. While police authorities must ensure maintenance of law and order, it is inappropriate for them to intervene in purely civil disputes except in ) strict conformity with law. Accordingly, this Court reiterates that the police authorities/respondents shall not involve themselves in civil disputes between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents, save and except where their intervention is warranted by law to preserve public peace.

10. tnsofar as the petitioners' grievance regarding registration of a case or initiation of disciplinary action is concerned, the remedies available under the criminal law are left open to be pursued by them in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. SREENIVASA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat, T.S.,Hyderabad.

2. The Director General of Police, z Government of Telangana State. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad, Hyderabad. 5. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vanastalipuram - P.S., Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

6. The Station House officer, Vanastalipuram Police Station, Cyberabad, Hyderabad.

7. One CC to SRl. TARUN G. REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRl. K. ASHOK REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCS tO GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad IOUTI

10. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOUTJ

11.Two CD Copies To, BM PVL Atl- HIGH COURT DATED:1810912025 ORDER WP.No.705 of 2017 F.* t o ,.t THE S 1fl rrn 7pr, >?.fo-. * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS P{ 0\tr,'