Telangana High Court
G.Venkatamma And Another vs State Of Telangana And Another on 16 March, 2026
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.11791 OF 2020
DATE : 16.03.2026
Between:
G.Venkatamma and another
...Petitioners
AND
The State of Telangana and another
...Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the 2nd Respondent-SHO in not providing Police Protection to the Petitioners Gandeed Mandal, Mahabubnagar District pursuant to the Complaint Dt.12/07/2020, as violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent-SHO to provide the necessary Police Protection to the Petitioners life and their land, and pass life and their property to an extent of Ac.7-05 Gts in Survey No.269 situated at Pagidyal Village...."
2. Heard Mr.P.Shiva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as respondent No. 2 failed to take action on the representation submitted by the petitioners seeking police protection for their life and liberty in respect of the petition schedule agricultural property, the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions. It is further submitted that the petitioners had earlier instituted O.S. No. 10 of 1979 seeking perpetual injunction against the unofficial respondents, which was decreed on 28.08.1980 by the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Thereafter, A.S. No. 359 of 1980 was preferred, which also ended in dismissal, and thus the decree in favour of the petitioners attained finality. Subsequently, the petitioners approached the revenue authorities for mutation, and upon action being taken, a revision was preferred by the respondents, which is presently pending before this Court. It is contended that, without considering these aspects, the police authorities declined to extend protection, and hence appropriate directions are sought.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, though the petitioners' representation refers to the civil decree, there is no specific direction from the competent civil Court for extending police protection or aid. It is further submitted that the relief sought by the petitioners is in the nature of execution of a civil decree, and in the absence of recourse to the appropriate execution proceedings, no action was taken. It is well settled that a person seeking 3 implementation of a decree must approach the competent civil/executing Court, and without doing so, a writ seeking police protection is not maintainable. Hence, dismissal of the petition is prayed for.
5. I have perused the material available on record.
6. The contention of the petitioners is that respondent No. 2/Station House Officer failed to provide police protection to safeguard their life and liberty, despite the existence of a civil decree in their favour. However, the pleadings do not disclose that the petitioners have approached the competent civil/executing Court seeking enforcement of the decree against the unofficial respondents. It is well settled, as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Kabbakula Padma v. State of Telangana, (2023) 1 ALT 765, that an aggrieved person seeking implementation of a decree, including police aid, must first approach the civil/executing Court. In the absence of such recourse, and in the absence of any exceptional circumstances, a writ petition seeking such relief is not maintainable.
7. As noted above, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners have taken steps to place the matter before the competent civil/executing Court. In such circumstances, and in the absence of any exceptional grounds, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Nevertheless, the rights of the petitioners are reserved to approach the 4 competent civil/executing Court for implementation of the decree, including seeking police protection or aid, in accordance with law.
8. With the above direction, 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: 16-03-2026 mmr