Hyderabad v. Syed Jahangir. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeai

Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to .,.RESPONDENTS direct the Respondents more particurarry Respondent Nos.4 to 6 not to dispossess the AppellanUpetitioner without due process of law. counsel for the Appeilant: sRr D.v. STTHARAM MURTHY, sR. couNsEL REp. FOR SRl KONDAPARTHY KTRAN KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent No.l to 5: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY, SpL Gp/ GP FOR REVENUE / ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL counsel forthe Respondent No.6: sRr K. RAVTNDER REDDY, sc FoR HYDRA counsel for the Respondent No.7: sRl v. NARASTMHA GouD, sc FoR HMDA The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE IION,BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND TIIE HON'BLE SRI WSTICEJ. SREENW AS RAO WRIT APPEALNo.6 4or. 2025 JUDGMENT: (Per the Ho^'bte the Chi{ Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. D.V. Sitharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar' learned counsel for the aPPellant. Mr. S. Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents No' 1 to 5' Mr. K. Ravinder Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Monitoring and Protection Agency (HYDRA) for the respondent No'6' Mr. V. Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) for the resPondent No'7'

2. This intra court appeal is liled against the order dated. O7.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge by 2 which the writ petition preferred by the appellant, namely W.P.No.32Og7 of 2024, has been dismissed.

3. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant claims title on the strength of an unregistered agreement of sale dated 16.01.19g6 executed by one Late Syed Azarn, s/o. Late Sri syed Aziz, irrfavour of the appellant in respect of the land measuring A.cs.7.00 in Survey No.563/1 situated at Bagh Amberpet Village, Amberpet Me*dal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as, "the subject land"). It was averred in the writ petition that late Syed Aziz purchased vast land under a sale deed from Pingali Venkatram Reddy. According to the appellant, the subject land is a dry land and is meant for construction of residential houses and the s€une was never classified as a water body. However, the respondents No.4 to 6 are interfering with the possession of the appeliant in respect of the subject rand. The appelra,t, t]-rerefore, filed the writ petition seekin g a direction to the respondents not to interfere with his possession in respect of the subject land. 3

4. A counter aJlidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents in which averments made in the writ petition were denied and the title of the appellant was also It was averred in the counter that the appellant disputed. has not produced any document of title'

5. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 07.O1.2O25, held that neither any scrap of paper nor any stray entry in the revenue record has been filed on behalf of the appellant in support of his claim that he is in possession of the subject land' It was further held that whether the subject land is a notified tank or not and whether the tank is in existence and the land bearing Survey No.563/1 relates Town Survey Nos'71/ | and 70/2 are the issues which are required to be dealt with by the competent civil Court. It was also noted that the writ petition was filed on the basis of an agreement and the contentions in respect of Survey No'563/ 1 were dealt with by an order dated 07.07.2023 passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.484 of 2Ol7 in District Collector' r 4 Hyderabad v. Syed Jahangir. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeai.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant strbmitted that the lear.ned Single Judge ought to have appreciated that the appeliant has title in respect of the land in question and he is in possession of the sarne. It is contended that the appellant cannot be dispossessc:d from the subject land except in accordance with law. Z - On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents uho have appeared on an advance notice have supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record.

9. It is trite law that this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 1226 of the Constitution of India, cannot determine the disputed questions of fact. From the averments made in the writ petition as wel as in the counter filed on behalf o!!he respondents, it is evident that there is a disput: r.vith regard to the nature of land as .weil 5 as title of the appellant which is claimed on the basis of an agreement. It is also not in dispute that a suit seeking the relief of specifrc performance of contract on the basis of the a-foresaid agreement has been frled by the appellant, which is pending. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has rightly declined to entertain the writ petition' I I

10. Needless to state that the appellant shall be at liberty to institute a suit, if so advised, with regard to his grievartce. In case such a suit along with an application for tempora-ry injunction is filed, the trial Court shall decide the sarne without being influenced by any of the observations contained in the order dated O7'O|'2O25 passed by the learned Single Judge. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

11. Accordingly, the writ appeat is disposed of' However' there shall be no order as to costs. 6 Miscellerreous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed To, 1 . The principal Secreti //TRUE COPYII ,=riK,L"JlYifi ) seca6ru oFFlcER i*"l$H*Nff,m';rml r, Hvdera bad Metropo ritan Deveropment Autho rity, ; iiqiiqf:ione Ltrf 1.q"5st.m'ffi^f*nr+i,mhrffi i,*ffih,if"",#", ;;$r;i{:f iBl.x#i,.Ti.H::;::il,'.EADERHghc.u-r.r - -*'lErvrLr .,rsrruountortheStateofTelangana. f+.|?Y'dOCopi", BN l HIGH COURT DATED:0910112025 JUDGMENT WA.No.64 of 2025 HE slaiA 1 { B g JAtt il:s * Or .S F,rJ * (l( 7 \ DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS \ ?^