Telangana High Court
Kannavena Rajaiah vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 9 March, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.13066 OF 2020
DATE : 09.03.2026
Between:
Kannavena Rajaiah
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana and Others
...Respondents
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 action of the Respondent No. 2 in not receiving the application of the petitioner for providing Police protection to petitioners property i.e., house bearing No. 3-1, measuring 52.77 Sq.Yards, situated at Nagepally Village of Ramagiri Mandal (erstwhile Kamanpur Mandal), Peddapall District pursuant to the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No. 24 of 2006, dated 12-04-2012, by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Manthani, as illegal and arbitrary, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to receive the application of petitioner and provide protection to the petitioners property i.e., house bearing No. 3-1, measuring 52.77 Sq.Yards, situated at Nagepally Village of Ramagiri Mandal (erstwhile Kamanpur Mandal), Peddapall District, and to pass...."
2. None for the petitioner.
2
3. Heard Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
4.1. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, in the absence of any specific direction from the Court concerned directing the police to provide protection, the request for police aid for implementing the decree in O.S. No. 24 of 2006 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Manthani, could not be acted upon. 4.2. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home further contends that the petitioner is seeking implementation of a civil decree. It is now well settled that, without first availing the appropriate remedy before the competent Civil Court for execution of the decree, a request for police aid under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
5. I have perused the material placed on record.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 has not provided police protection to the petitioner's house property despite receiving his representation seeking implementation of the decree in O.S. No. 24 of 2006. Thus, the essence of the petitioner's grievance is the implementation of the said decree.
3
7. A Division Bench of this Court in Kabbakula Padma v. State of Telangana [(2023) 1 ALT 765] considered this issue and categorically held that a petition seeking implementation of an order or decree cannot be maintained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and that the aggrieved party must approach the concerned Court by filing an appropriate petition, such as an Execution Petition.
8. In the present case, there is no pleading to show that the petitioner has approached the concerned Court seeking execution or implementation of the decree. In view of this factual position and the settled legal principle referred to above, the prayer of the petitioner seeking a direction for implementation of the decree is not maintainable.
9. Nevertheless, the petitioner is at liberty to avail appropriate remedies before the competent Civil/Executing Court for execution of the decree, including seeking police aid or protection, if required.
10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 09.03.2026.
CHS