Friday, 01, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Naser Salahuddin Qureshi vs The State Of Telangana
2026 Latest Caselaw 357 Tel

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 357 Tel
Judgement Date : 6 April, 2026

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Telangana High Court

Naser Salahuddin Qureshi vs The State Of Telangana on 6 April, 2026

  IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
                     HYDERABAD

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

               WRIT PETITION No.10025 of 2026

                        Date: 06.04.2026

Between:

Naser Salahuddin Qureshi and another

                                                       ..Petitioners
                               And


The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department,
Secretariat Building, Hyderabad
and 6 others

                                                     ..Respondents
ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:-

"...to declare the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 5 in not considering and acting upon the representation of the petitioner dated 27.02.2026 and 07.03.2026 and in not providing police aid and protection for effective implementation of the Judgment and Decree dated 03.01.2023 passed in O.S.No.2272 of 2018, on the file of the Court of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in respect of agricultural dry land admeasuring Ac.05.37 guntas, in Survey No.745, situated at Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondents, more particularly

respondent No.5, to provide necessary police aid and protection to the petitioners for implementation of the decree of perpetual injunction dated 03.01.2023 in O.S.No.2272 of 2018 and to ensure that respondent Nos.6 and 7 and their men do not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject land i.e., agricultural dry land admeasuring Ac.05.37 guntas, in Survey No.745, situated at Shamshabad Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District...."

2. Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.Srinivas, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for

respondent Nos.1 to 5 and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that the petitioners are the lawful owners and

possessors of agricultural land to an extent of Acs.5.37

guntas in Sy.No.745, situated at Shamshabad Village and

Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioner No.1 owning

Acs.2.3850 guntas and petitioner No.2 owning Acs.2.3850

guntas. Their ownership is derived from Khaleel-Ul-Rahman,

the original owner, and both have been in continuous,

peaceful possession of their respective shares. Respondent

Nos.6 and 7, who had no legal claim over the land, repeatedly

attempted to interfere with the petitioners' possession,

prompting petitioner No.1 to file O.S.No.2272 of 2018, which

resulted in a decree granting perpetual injunction restraining

such interference. Despite the decree, these respondents,

along with their associates, have continued illegal attempts to

trespass and threaten the petitioners. The petitioners

submitted representations requesting police protection, but

the authorities failed to act, thereby abdicating their statutory

duty and indirectly aiding the trespassers. The petitioners

seek a direction from this Court to compel respondent Nos.2

to 5, to provide necessary aid and protection to enforce the

decree and ensure peaceful possession, as no other effective

remedy exists and they face imminent irreparable loss.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order

dated 12.11.2025 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court

in W.P. No.31735 of 2025, where the Court disposed of a writ

petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to have their

representation considered for implementation of a trial Court

order under similar circumstances. In the present case, the

petitioner submitted a detailed representation seeking police

aid for enforcement of the decree, but no action has been

taken by the official respondents. The petitioner, therefore,

seeks appropriate directions from this Court directing

respondent No.2 to consider the representation and provide

necessary police protection.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home on

instructions would submit that the petitioner submitted a

representation dated 07.03.2026 to respondent No.5-Station

House Officer of RGI Airport Police Station, Hyderabad,

requesting police protection for the enforcement of the decree

and permanent injunction in O.S.No.2272/2018 concerning

land in Sy.No.745, Shamshabad Village and Mandal.

Respondent No.5 acknowledged that representation through

Petition Entry No.HYD/RGIAIRPORT_CYB/070326/00746,

dated 07.03.2026. However, the petitioners did not provide

any specific order from a competent court directing the police

to extend protection for the implementation of the Judgment

and Decree dated 03.01.2023. In the absence of such an

order, the police cannot legally provide protection. If the

petitioners furnish an appropriate court order, the police will

act in accordance with the law. Filing the present writ

petition without obtaining or producing a court order is not

maintainable. Hence, seeks to dismiss the present writ

petition.

6. The legal position with regard to seeking police aid for

implementation of an order or decree passed by a competent

civil Court is no longer res integra. In Kabbakula Padma v.

State of Telangana1, this Court held that a petition seeking

police action for implementation of an order or decree is not

maintainable unless the petitioner has first exhausted the

efficacious remedies available before the civil Court or the

executing Court.

7. In the present case, the material on record does not

disclose that the petitioner has taken any steps before the

[(2023) 1 ALT 765]

civil Court for seeking police aid. In view of the settled legal

position, and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances

warranting interference by this Court, the prayer made by the

petitioner for grant of police aid is not maintainable.

8. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail

appropriate remedies before the competent civil Court, in

accordance with law.

9. With the above observations, this writ petition is

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if

any, shall stand closed.

_____________________ E.V.VENUGOPAL, J 06.04.2026 vsu/spd

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter