1. Ramtenki Bhoomaiah v. 1. The State of Telangana

6. The District Collector, Mancherial District. 7. The Tahsildar, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District. 8. Sri.Pramod Rao, S/o.not known, aged aboui Major, Occ Circle lnspector of Police, Mancherial Rural Police Station, CCC, Mancherial, Mancherial District.

9. Ramtenki Lingamma, Wo.Ramatenki Bapu, aged about 68 years, Occ Household, Rl/o. H.No .4-25, Seetharampally Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District, Pin Code No 504302. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Articte 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased t,t issue a writ order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 and 5 in interfering with the perscnal liberty of the petitioners by calling to the Sth respondent Police Station with the instance of the respondents No.8 and 9 and pressurizing the petitionersr to handover the land in Sy.No.2013 admeasuring Ac.1.39 gts, Sy.No.15/4 admeasuring Ac.0.'18 gts and Sy.No.2113 admeasuring Ac.1.28 gts situated al Seetharampally Village, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District to the 9th respondert as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law apart from violation of principles of natural justice besides violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of tndia and consequently direct the respondents No.4 and 5 to not to interfere with the personal liberty of the petitioners by calling the petitioners to the police staticn. l.A.NO:1 OF 2017 (WPMP.NO:44693 OF 2017) Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavil filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the responlents No.4 & 5 to not to interfere with the personal liberty of the petitioners by calling them to the police station, pending disposal of the writ petition. c o u n se r for th e P etiti on e r"' $;; $rt-ifrlTlft fRISsf'E F o R Counselfor the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : SRI M.SRINIVAS, AGP FOR HOME Counselfor the Respondent Nos.6 & 7 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.8 & 9 : SRI P.MAHIPAL REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P.LAKSHMA REDDY The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.35979 OF 2017 ORDER: This \7rit Petition is filed with the following reliefi "...to issue a writ order or direction, more particulaflyone in fhe nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 in interfering with the penonal liberty of the petirioners by,.taling,ro.rrhe 5,h respondent Police Starion wirh the instance of the respondenr Nos.8 uid 9 and pressurizing the petirioners ro handover the land in Sy.No.20l3 admeasuring Ac.1.39 gts, Sy.No.l5/4, adnre,asuring fu.0.18 grs and Sy:No.21l3, admeasuring fu.1.28 gts, siruatid ar SeerharampallyVillage, Naspur Mandal lvlancherial District to the 9,r, respondent as being illegal, ,6ir.r.y and contrary to law apan, from violarion of principles of rntur:I jutice besides vioLuion of Anicles t4 &21and 3OGA of the Corstirution of lndia and corsequendy direa the respondents Nos.4 and 5 to not to interfere with the personal liberty of the petirioners bycalling rhe petitionen to the police station and pass..." 2 Fleard ]v{s.G.Shanth4 learned counsel representing ' for the IvIr.N.Indrasena Reddy, learned counsel petitioners, IVIT.NI"S rinivas, learned fu s istant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. L to 5 and Mr.P.Mahipal Reddy, learned counsel representing I\zlr.P.Lalshrna Reddy, leamed counsel for unofficial respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 havd been interfering with the / / .1 .4 .t 2 pe$onal life and libercy of the petitioners and, at the irstance of the unofficial respondent, have been exerting pressure upon them ro hand over their lands. consequently, the present petition has been filed seeking appropriate directiors from this Hon'bk: Court.

4. Le arned Assistant Government pleader, appearing for the official respondents, submits that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have never inr;erfered in any civil dispures or in the penonal life and libercy o[ the pedtiones, 2s alleged. It is contended that the allegatiors made in the petition are vague and devoid of particulars or supporting material. Accord"ingly, praF for dismissal of the petition.

5. karned co*nsel appearing for the unofficial respondent submits that the said respondent has no concem whamoever with the ,rllegations made by the petitioners md, rherefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.

6. I have penrsed the material availabre on record. \ \ 3

7. Flaving regard to the facts of rhe case, the affirmative statements made on affidavit by the petitionen, and the categorical submission of respondenr Nos. 4 and 5 that no criminal case is pending against the petitioners, this Court is of the view that appropriate directions are sraffanred. Cornidering also the limitations on police authoricy in relation ro civil rnatters, it is directed thar respondenr Nos. 4 and 5 shall not interfere with the civil disputes or with the personal life and Iiberryof the petitioners, except in accordance with due process and sffict compliance with law. The petititrn is ordered accordingly.

8. Vith this direction, th \Vrit Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitiors, pending rf arry,shall stand closed. ,1 To I I //TRUE COPYII Sd/.T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR -/-(? SECTION OFFICER (Home Department), secretariat, state of relangana ' ]ifir|at$:ipalsecretarv, 2' The Director Ge1_erar.g[ poricq Hyderabad, state of rerangana. 3. The commissioner of p_oriie, FiariJgunqam, peddapaili District. 4. The circre rnsoector or Fori"b, ir,li#n"i[r c;ri p;[:"st"rion, ccc, _ Irlancheriat, Mancheriat D-iiiiit."-"- 5. The station House officer, Ccb poti"" Station, Mancheriar, Mancheriar District. t Hydr:rabad. [OUT]

6. The District Collector, Mancherial District. 7. TheTahsildar, Naspur Mandal, Mancherial District. 8. Two ccs to GP.FOR HOME, High court for the State of relangana at 9. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at 10. One CC to SRt N.TNDRASENA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 11. One CC to SRt P.LAKSHMA REDDY, Advocate TOFUCI 12.Two CD Copies Hyderabad. [OUT] SA/DL W / ,/ i I I I HIGH COURT DATE D:25109 12025 \ \\ , I Siri / ORDElR WP.No.35979 of 2017 ? ? JA}l 202[ !.,= I * + DISPO$ING OF THE W.P WITHOIJT COSTS. I i