WP/30261/2025 of Kasi Reddy Panduranga Reddy Vs The State of Telangana on 7 October 2025

1. Kasi Reddy Panduranga Reddy, S/o Late Kasireddy Ramchandra Reddy, Aged about 74 years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No 402, Airbus Apartments, Vittalwadi, Narayanguda, Hyderabad.

2. Komirelly Suryakala Reddy, W/o Late Komirelly Jayapal Reddy, Aged about 72 years, Occ House hold, Rl/o. H. No 2-2-18l18141241A., D D Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

3. Kasireddy Bhulender Reddy, S/o Late KasiReddy Ramchandra Reddy, Aged about 70 years, Occ Business, Ri/o. Villa No.8 and 9, Sitarama homes, Bachupally, Nizampet, Hyderabad

4. Kasireddy Vemana Reddy, S/o Late Kasireddy Ramchandra Reddy, Aged about 67 years, Occ Business, R/o. 8-3-318/1 114, Jayarakash Nagar, Yellareddy GuQa, Hyderabad-73

5. Sarasam Abharna Devi, W/o Late Sarasam Rama Krishna Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ House hold, Rl/o. '1 1, lVlahalaxmi Residency, Kompally, Ranga Reddy-14.

6. Sunki Reddy Vaidehi, W/o Sunki Reddy Rajasekhar reddy, Aged about 58 years, Occ House hold, No. 3-6-2241225, flat No. 302, Sreedevi estates, Street No.-16'1 Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad-29.

7. Dr. Kasi Reddy Maheshwar Reddy, S/o. Kasireddy Bhujender Reddy, Aged about 41 Years, Occ Doctor (Pediatric Dentist), R/o. H.No. 8-4-330/1/A, Kalpataru Residency, A-1406, Prem Nagar, Erragadda, Hyderabad, T.S.- 50001 8 (Petitioner No. 7 is the GPA holder of Petitioner No. '1 to 6) AND

The State of Telangana, Rep by it's Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State The District Collector, Medchal-t\/alkajgiri District, At tr/alkajgiri, T.S The Revenue Divisional Officer, tt/edchal-l\/alkajgiri District, At Malkajgiri, T.S The Tahsildar, Bachupally lvlandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, T.S, The Station House Officer, Bachupally Police Station, At Bachupally, t\rled ch a l-Ma I kajg i ri District.

) [316p ] .,,PETITIONERS

6. Kolan Krishna Reldy, S/o. Not known, Aged about 60 years, ()cc Busings:, ) Fl/o. H.NO. 1-47, Near Grama panch:ryathi, Bachupally, Ni;ran pet, tvedcha]- Malkajgiri District, Telangana State.

7. Kolan Seetharan' Reddy, S/o. Not known, Aged about 65 years, Occ business, R/o. H.lrlO. 1-47, Near Grama panchayathi, Bachupillly, Nizampet, Medchal-tr/alka jgir i District, Telangana State.

8. Kolan Balu Redd y, S/o- Not known, Aged about fir'lajor, Occ cusiness, R/o. H.NO. 1-47, Ne;rr Grama panchayathi, Bachupally, Nizampet, I\rledchal- Malkajgiri District. Telangana State.

9. Kolar Jeevan Rerldy, S/o. Not known, Aged about Major, Occ business, R/o. H.NO. '1-47, Near Grama panchayathi, Bachupally, Nizampet, l\rledchal- Malkajgiri Distrrct, Telangana State. ...RI:SPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filecl therewith, the Hieth (lourt may be pleased to pass an orcer or orders one in the nature of WRIT OF CERTIORARI pleased to quash the inrpugned Notice issued by the respondent No.5 (SHO, Police Bachupally) to he respondent No.4 (Hon'ble Second Class lt/agistrate- Cum-Tahsildar, Bachupally ltrlandal, Medchal-tvlalkajgiri District )vide Notice reference No.937/CrlBcg nlCybl2025. dated. 16.09.2025 directing to conduct the survey and demarcat: the petitioners Land and to take poss;ession of the disputed land in Sy l,Jo. 458 admeasuring about 1 1 1 7 Sq yards, situated at Bachupally Village anri lvlandal, now Medchal-Malkajgiri District, ils the same is illegal, arbitrary, agailst law, not binding on the petitioner arrd against the principles of natural Juslice, against the Provistons of the Telange na Survey and Boundaries Act 1932 e nrl against the Article 300-4 of the constitut on of lndia. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under [iection 151 CPC praying that in the crrcunrstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rna1, be pleased to stay the entire proce.edings in pursuance of the Notice vide. reference No. 937lCrlBcpllCyblZ)2s dated. 16.09.2025 issued by the respondr..nt No.5 (SHO, Police Bachupally) to the respondent No.4 (Hon'ble SeconcJ cl;rss Magistrate- Cum-Tahsildar, Bachupally lvlandal, Ir/lerjchal-Malkajgiri Distrirl directing to conduct the survey and demarcate the petitioners Land and to t.tke possession of the disputed land ir Siy No. 458 admeasuring about '1 117 Sq yards, situated at Bachupally Village and tVlandal, now [\/edchal-Malkajgiri District till the pending ) disposal of this writ pelition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.S: AGP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER

]'Ht. I I()N'BLE SIu.ttis trCU K. LAKSHNIAI,I oRDI.,R I leard Sri Srrresh Slriv Sagar, lcarned Counscl Ibr the petitioners, leanretl \ssistant Governrncnt ['leacler tbr Rever:ue and learned Assistant ( iovernnrent I'leacler lirr IIonre.

2. Petitioners hcrein are clainring lhat thcy arc tlle absolute owners and possesst,rs ol lantl adnreasurrng I I l7 Sc1.1,axls in Survey No.458, situatcd at Bachupalll.'\,'illage ancl Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri I)istrict. Pctitioners hlvc lorlgccl a cornplairrt rvith thc Police, Bachupall 7 Police Station, u.lro in turn. reqistercd a case in Crime No.656 r.'1.1024 against K.Scctharanr l{eddy antl otlrer:;lbr the off-ences punishal'le under Scctions 126( 2). il+(4), 351(2) rt:ad with Section 3(5) ol LiNS Act. l-hclealicr', respondcut No.5 has issued notice dated l(r.09.2025 unrler Section I6.1 ol' BNSS, requcsting rcspondent No.-1 to plornulgate lhc procccclings undcl Ser:tion 164 o1' BNSS. Challerrg ug the said rrotice clatetl 16.09.2025, pe titioners lllecl the prescnt rvrit petition \t lU'l' l'U'l'l-l'lO\ No.-1()261 OI" 2025

l --..,1 l. [n the said noticc datccl lr6.09.2025, rcspondenr. No.-5 has specilically inlbrnrcd al]oLrt the complaint submitled by Kolan Veera I{eddy and Kasiredtly Nluhesri,ar l{er1dy i.c., pctitioner No.7 herein Hc has also speci fically, nrcntioncd atrout the dispute be twcen the parties and therc is evcry L'rossibility of breach of peace ovcr thc subject property. -l-hcrclirrc, therc is uo error in the impugned notice dated 16.09.202-5 issuetl bv rcspourlcnt No.5. tl thc petitioncrs are aggrici,ed by thc plocecclines issucd by rcspondcnt No.4 promulgating tlrc pnrcecrlirrgs unclcr Section 164 ol IINSS, they have to aplrroach bcfbrc rcspr'rnclent No.4 by filing alt thc relevant docunrents ancl also crplauation in tcnns o1' Scction I 64 of BNSS with a rccluest to sct asrtlc thc procectlings or to dclcte the subject proper-ty fiom the said procccdin-qs. Without doing so, petitioncrs have filed the prescnt ri'rit pctition. challenging the notice datcd 16.09.2025 itsclt. -l'hcrctbrc. pctitioners are not entitled lbr any rclief nruch lcss the rclie l'sought in the prcsent Writ I'}etition and the same is liable to bc tlistttrssctl.

4. Accorclingly. this Writ [)ctitior.r is dismissed. There shall be no ordel as to costs I l I I l

To, BSR TKS As a set;ur:l. the miscellaneous pctitions, if any, pcndLng in the Writ Petition shzrll stand closed. ,TRUE COPY//

1. One CC to SRI SIJRESH SHIV SAGAR, Advocate [O Cl

2. Two CCs to G '] FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OLIT]

4. Two CD Copie:; &

A :;D/- A.V.S.PRASAD DT:PU Y REGISTRAR 1]E(;TION OFFICER 4

! HIGH COURT DATED:0711A12C25

ORDER

WP.No.30261 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT CoSTS

lc li IllI 2l oct P5

4. r(\l a- ti aii /i' /. -\ fi.;:';;N ' o.:\ o \.i". \ o.' \-!