Telangana High Court
Kalluri Mallesh And Another vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 10 September, 2025
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.2101 OF 2021
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:
"To issue a Writ order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the
inaction of the respondent No.4 in not providing the police
protection in pursuance of the representation dated
26.11.22020 which is made as per the orders passed in
I.A. No.541/2020 in I.A. No.514/2020 in O.S.
No.512/2020 by the Hon'ble Sub-Divisional and Special
Asst. Agent to the Government Mobile Court at
Bhadrachalam dated 23/11/2020 as illegal, arbitrary,
malafide and violation of principles of natural justice."
2. Heard Sri Ch. Janardhan Reddy, learned Counsel for the
petitioners and Assistant Government pleader for Home
appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present petition has been filed on account of the inaction of
respondent No.4, the Station House Officer, Chunchupalli Police
Station, in providing police protection as directed in I.A. No.541
of 2020 in I.A. No.514 of 2020 in O.S. No.512 of 2020, by the
Special Assistant Agent to the Government, Bhadrachalam.
Despite the petitioner having made a representation dated
26.11.2020 to the police authorities, no action was taken.
4. The petitioner's counsel vehemently contends that the
Court, after considering the submissions of the petitioner, had
granted an interim injunction together with a direction for police
protection. Pursuant thereto, a representation was duly
submitted to the police authorities requesting enforcement of
the said direction. However, as the police failed to act, the
petitioner was constrained to file the present petition. Counsel
further submits that, during the pendency of this petition, the
original suit itself has been decreed in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petitioner now seeks a direction to the police to
provide protection so as to enable effective implementation of
the decree. In support of this plea, reliance is placed upon the
judgments in Rayapati Audemma v. Pothineni Narasimham, AIR
1971 AP 53, and Satyanarayana Tiwari v. S.H.O., P.S.
Santhoshnagar, AIR 1982 AP 394, wherein it was held that
when police authorities fail to discharge their statutory duties,
an aggrieved party may invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to seek appropriate directions to
the police.
5. On the other hand, the Learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor submits that, admittedly, the suit in question has
been decreed. Since the relief presently sought is for
enforcement of an interim injunction order, which has already
merged with the final decree, the petitioner ought to pursue
execution proceedings before the competent forum. At this
stage, seeking enforcement of an interim order would be
rendered infructuous. Accordingly, it is prayed that the petition
be dismissed.
6. I have perused the materials on record.
7. The petitioners seek a direction to the police to provide
protection in accordance with the order passed in I.A. No.541 of
2020. For better appreciation, the operative portion of the said
order is extracted below:
"To
The Station House Officer,
P.S.Chunchupalli, Chunchupalli Mandal,
Bhadradri Kothagudem District.
You are hereby directed to give necessary police protection
to the petitioner/plaintiff and take necessary steps to restrain
the respondents/defendants, their henchmen, servants, agents,
or anyone acting on their behalf from in any way interfering
with the petitioners/plaintiffs' peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the schedule property until further orders.
Schedule of Property:
Agricultural land admeasuring Ac.5.00 gts. in Sy. No.137/1/E,
137/2/A, situated at Sainikpuri Colony, Near Attala Factory,
Ramanjaneya Colony Gram Panchayat, Chunchupalli Mandal,
Bhadradri Kothagudem District, bounded as follows:
East: Attala Factory and house of Kishore Kumar
West: Land of Bhukya Bhadri and Kurma Pedda Mallaiah
North: Land of Boda Mangamma
South: Land of Dondapati Kanakatara and plaintiffs'
remaining land."
8. The petitioners claim to have submitted a representation
dated 26.11.2020 to the police authorities, the material portion
of which is reproduced herein:
"To
The respected Circle Inspector,
Laxmidevipally P.S. Laxmidevipaly,
Kothagudem, Badradri Kothagudem District.
Sir,
Sub: Request to take necessary action as per the Court
Orders against the Rajakula (Washermen) who illegally
trespassed into our Patta agricultural lands on 26.11.2020 in
Survey No.137/2A and 137/1E to an extent of Ac.9.29 Guntas
(Nine Acres Twenty Nine Guntas) and Ac.08.18 Guntas (Eight
Acres Eighteen Guntas) which are in the records situated at
Ramanjaneya Colony Gram Panchayathi, Chunchupalli Mandal,
Bhadradri Kothagudem District, and removed corn crop by
marking and affixed the Tenant and provide protection to us -
Reg.
...
We, 1. Kalluru Mallesh 2. Kalluri Chandramohan @ Mogili
Sons of Kalluri Sanjeeva Rao R/o N.K. Nagar, submits that the
land in Survey No.137/2A and 137/1E to an extnt of Ac.9.29
Guntas (Nine Acres Twenty Nine Guntas) and Ac.08.18 Guntas
(Eight Acres Eighteen Guntas) which are in the records situated
at Ramanjaneya Colony Gram Panchayathi, Chunchupalli
Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, is continuing on the
name of Kalluri Sanjeeva Rao in the revenue records. The said
land is in our possession since 1954 and we are having rights
over the said land on hereditary basis. On 07.11.2020 the
Rajakula (Washermen) about 100 to 150 ladies and gents under
the leadership of Katala Vasanta Rao, Chitikena Bhaskar Rao,
Bapanapelli Sarvesh, Marepalli Ravi, Kasamkota Sujatha,
Bhupalli Purnachander Rao and Bapanapalli Sattemma
destroyed the boundary and illegally trespassed into our land
and threatened us by saying they will kill us and they injured to
us and thrown us, then we approached to the Mobile Court at
Byhadrachalam by filing a Suit against the Rajakula
(Washermen) then the said course passed injunction Order and
police protection order in our favour vide O.S. No.512 of 2020.
On 26.11.2020 about 100 to 150 persons illegally trespassed
into our land, marked the land and tried to affix the tenants.
Hence, we are requesting you to kindly take necessary action
against above said Rajakula (Washermen) persons as per the
Bhadrachalam Mobile Court Orders and provide protection to
the below mentioned our land.
Boundaries of Schedule Property:
East: Paper Factory and House of Kishore
West: Agricultural Land of Bhukya Bhadri and
Kurma Pedda Mallaiah
North: Land of Boda Mangamma
South: Lands of Dondapati Kanakatara and our own
lands
Hence, we request you to kindly remove the tents affixed
by the Rajakula (Washermen) on the above said shown
boundary land and evict them from the above and to take
necessary action against them by providing protection to us and
to our land as per the Court Orders and also permit us to make
boundary to our own land.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
1. Sd/-
(Kalluri Mallesh)
2. Sd/-
H. No.5-1-175,
N.K. Nagar, Chunchupalli Mandal,
Bhadradri Kothagudem District.
Cell No.9866777818."
9. The afore noted record demonstrates that in I.A. No.514 of
2020, the civil court granted an interim injunction restraining
the defendants and their associates from interfering with the
petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule
property. In I.A. No.541 of 2020, the Station House Officer was
directed to afford police protection to the petitioners to secure
compliance with the injunction. It is thus evident that the court
intended to safeguard the petitioners' possession by directing
the police to prevent unlawful interference.
10. The petitioners' representation dated 26.11.2020
reiterates that large numbers of individuals encroached upon
their land, dispossessed them, and attempted to erect tents.
However, on a perusal of the pleadings in O.S. No.512 of 2020,
it is seen that in paragraph 3 of the plaint, the petitioners had
referred to an incident dated 02.11.2020, alleging interference
by the defendants, followed by a complaint lodged before
respondent No.4 on 07.11.2020. Notably, the plaint does not
refer to the incidents of 07.11.2020 or 26.11.2020 regarding
alleged mass encroachment or erection of tents, which are
highlighted in the police representation. This inconsistency in
pleadings indicates that the petitioners have not approached
either the civil court or the police with candour. It is well-settled
that a litigant invoking extraordinary jurisdiction must
approach the court with clean hands. (Dalip Singh v. State of
U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114). The contradictions in the petitioners'
narrative undermine the bona fides of their claim.
11. Viewed from another angle, the grievance of the
petitioners essentially relates to the alleged disobedience of an
interim injunction by the defendants. In such cases, the
appropriate statutory remedy lies under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which empowers the
court to punish for breach of injunction orders. This position
has been consistently upheld. The Hon'ble Suprme Court in
Mohd. Abdul Wahid v. State of Telangana, (2019) 14 SCC 9
categorically held that directions under Article 226 cannot be
used to grant reliefs which properly fall within the jurisdiction of
the executing court. Further a Division Bench of this Court in
Writ Appeal No.334 of 2023 (decided on 16.03.2023), in
reiteration held that when an interim injunction is violated, the
proper and effective remedy is to move the civil court under
Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC. Therefore in this legal position,
resorting to a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
without exhausting the remedy before the executing court is
impermissible, absent exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances.
12. Moreover, the relief sought in the writ petition and the
police representation includes eviction of persons in occupation
and restoration of possession. Such reliefs travel beyond the
scope of the interim injunction and police protection order,
which were limited to preventing interference with the
petitioners' possession. Directing the police to dispossess others
and restore possession would, in effect, amount to execution of
a decree, which can only be sought in execution proceedings
under Order XXI CPC. Police protection orders are not intended
to operate as instruments for recovery of possession (K.K.
Dewan v. District Magistrate, Chandigarh, AIR 1982 P&H 482).
13. In the circumstances, the conduct of the police in not
acceding to such demands, which fall outside the scope of the
interim order, cannot therefore be faulted. The petitioners'
contention that the police failed to act upon their representation
is without merit.
14. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view
that the present writ petition is devoid of merit. Since the suit in
O.S. No.512 of 2020 has already been decreed, the petitioners
are at liberty to pursue execution proceedings before the
competent civil court under Order XXI CPC. The executing court
shall deal with any such application strictly in accordance with
law, uninfluenced by the observations in this order.
15. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed,
leaving it open to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies in
execution of the suit decree. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Petition, shall
stand closed.
_________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 10.09.2025
MRKR
