IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.12474 OF 2017

08^th December, 2025 Between:

Cheiryala @ Sircilla Shashi Rekha and others …

Petitionerss AND The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department and others.

…Respondents

O R D E R:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief/s:-

“…to issue a Writ, Order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus a) in action of the Respondents in not considering the petitioners representations, to protect the possession and ownership interests of the petitioners to the land in Sy No.1902 to an extent of 430 Sq yards., and 600 Sq yards, respectively situated at Prashanthnagar Gram Panchayat, of Siddipet District, erstwhile Medak District, which is patta land and demarcated by the Revenue officials through survey and fixation of boundaries, from illegal encroachment by Respondents 6 to 8 and their families and community people, in spite of having obtained permanent injunction in the petitioners favour restraining the Respondents Nos., 6 to 8 and their family members, agents, relatives, friends on their behalf from interfering in any way with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land pursuant Judgement in OS. No. 44 of 2009 dt.20-11-2015 on the file of the court of the Honble Junior Civil judge, Siddipet, which has become final as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice and b) and Consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to initiate action by directing the 5th Respondent to file a First information report against the Respondents No. 6 to 8 to investigate into the said illegal encroachment, c) to issue a direction directing the 4th Respondents subordinates to remove all illegal structures that may have been constructed on the said lands in Sy.No. No.1902 to an extent of 430 Sq yards., and 600 Sq yards, by the Respondents 6 to 8 respectively situated at Prashanthnagar Gram Panchayat, of Siddipet, erstwhile Medak District…”

2. None appeared for the petitioners.

3. Heard Mr. M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioners’ representation dated 10.03.2017 was duly considered by the concerned police authorities, and since the averments therein were found to be civil in nature, no crime was registered. The petitioners were accordingly advised to pursue appropriate civil remedies available under law. It is therefore contended that the allegation of inaction on the part of the respondent police authorities is unfounded, and hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioners is that their representation was not considered by the respondent police authorities. However, the explanation offered by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home demonstrates that the said representation was in fact considered, and the authorities, upon exercising their jurisdictional discretion, did not find sufficient grounds to register a criminal case, as the matter was purely civil in nature. Thus, prima facie, no impropriety is made out, and the allegation of non- consideration of the representation is without any factual basis.

7. Be that as it may, if the petitioners are still aggrieved by the non-registration of a crime, they are required to avail the statutory remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The law governing this issue has been clearly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others [(2008) 2 SCC 409] and M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others [(2020) 16 SCC 728], wherein it was held that a person aggrieved by non- registration of a complaint must first resort to the statutory