IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.10922 OF 2026

10^th April, 2026 Between:

Mekala Devender Reddy …Petitioner AND The State of Telangana and Others …Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents No.2 to 4 not providing Police protection to the Petitioner against the Respondent No.5 and his antisocial elements who are threatening the Petitioner with dire consequences to kill him if the Petitioner enter into his land i.e., dry land in Sy.No.349/U admeasuring Ac.3-30gts, situated at Shivaredddyguem Village, Pochampallv Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, Telangana State. as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, besides violation of this Honourable Court directions and consequently direct the Respondents No.2 to 4 to provide Police protection to the Petitioner against the Respondent No.5 and his antisocial elements who are threatening the Petitioner with dire consequences in respect of his land i.e., dry land in Sy.No.349/U admeasuring Ac.3-30gts, situated at Shivaredddyguem Village, Pochampally Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir District, Telangana State….

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have failed to extend police protection against respondent No. 5, who is allegedly interfering with the petition schedule property, notwithstanding the interim status quo order granted by the competent Civil Court in O.S. No. 938 of 2021, which is in force till disposal of the suit.

3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, fairly submits that an application seeking police protection has already been filed before the Civil Court, and the same is presently pending consideration. Though the petitioner has approached this Court, learned counsel is unable to substantiate the necessity for interim relief in the present writ petition and accordingly prays for appropriate orders.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is, in effect, seeking implementation of the Civil Court’s interim order through police aid. It is contended that, in the absence of a specific direction from the competent Civil Court to provide police protection, the respondents/police cannot independently extend such protection. Hence, appropriate orders are sought.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. The core grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 5 is interfering with his possession of the subject property, despite the subsistence of an order of status quo granted by the Civil Court. However, it is evident from the record that no specific direction has been issued by the Civil Court for grant of police protection to enforce the said interim order.

7. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has already approached the trial Court by filing an appropriate application seeking police protection in respect of the very same subject matter, and the said application is pending consideration.

8. In this context, it is apposite to refer to the settled legal position that enforcement or implementation of orders passed by a Civil Court, including interlocutory orders, must ordinarily be sought before the same Court or the Executing Court having jurisdiction. The Division Bench of this Court, in Kabbakula Padma v. State of Telangana, 2022 SCC ONLINE TS 2054, has categorically held that where a party seeks enforcement of a decree or order of a Civil Court, the proper remedy lies before the Civil Court itself, and invocation of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for such purposes is not appropriate.

9. This principle is consistent with