The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 of C.P.C., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the docket order passed in 1.A.No.778 of 2023, in O.A.No.38 of 2023, dt.22-12-2o23 (lnterim lnjunction Order) on the file of the Court of the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Between: Sri Lingayath Roadwala IVlutt, Attapur Village, Rajendrerr.agar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Rep. by its Executive Officer. AND PETTTTONER/RESPONDENT 'l . DR. M. Vis;hnu Vardhan Reddy,S/o. M Venkat Reddy, ticed about 55 years, Occ. Medi,:al Practetioner, R/o. Attapur Village, Rajehcriiragar Mandai, Ranga Re,Jdy District, presently residing at Flat No.23O,t 3 LH, Manikonda Lanco Hills, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distr:.. RESPC,I\ DENT/APPELLANT

2. The Assistant Comm rissioner, Endowments ,"rrnr"n, Flanga Reddy District. ...RESPONI) :NT/RESPONDENT Petition under Section 151 of C.P.C., praying that i'the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ther rjlg6 Courl may be pleased to vacate the interim order passed in lA No.2 of 2024 in CMA.No.33 of 2024, daled.12.01 .2024. Counsel for the Appellant in CMA :SRl B.SHIV RAM SHARMA Counsel for the Respondents :SRI RAHUL BHATI REPRT:S;ENTING SRI J.R.MANOHAR RAO ST,\NDING COUNSEL FOR ENDOWMEIITS The Court made the following : JUDGMENT B' HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.33 OF 2024 JUDGMENT: This Appeal is filed aggrieved by the docket order dated

22.\2.2023 passed in lA.No.778 of 2023 in OA.No.38 ol 2023 on the file of the Telangana Endown.rents -fribunal, Hyderabad (l'rereinafter ret-erred to as 'the 'l'ribunal')

2. Heard Sri B.Shiv Ram Sharma, lcarned counsel for appellant and Sri Rahut Bhati, learred counsel leplesenting Sri J.R.Manohar Rao leamed Standing Counscl fol Endowments appearing for respondent No.l.

3. The appellant l-rereirr is the respondent and respondents herein are applicants in the OA befbre the Tlibunal.

4. fhe facts of the case, in brief, are lhat respondent Nos.l and 2 have filed OA.No.38 of 2023 against tl.re appellant before the Tribunal in respect of land admeasuring 400 square yards Sy.No.369 of Attapul Village, Rajendlanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District claiming to be the property of Sri Lingayath Road Wala Mutt-a religious institution and to declare the appellant as encroacher and conscquently, to direct the appellant to remove the ene*'qachments including structures in the OA schedule property .;EE!Iffi5 ;!-:j"!ffi reB?rErrr.. '.. li": " ir. . . \:.\ _... -_; ,r \ \. .; \ .- \ ' \. 2 1N.4,.1 r-rl t.to. of 2024

5. In the said O.A., it was averred that the srrlriect Mutt is an ancient institution and the subject Mutt is publish..rl and classified under S,rction 6(d)(i) of TSCIIRI & Endorvments ,\cr, 30 o1'I987; that an extellt ol Acs.23.20 guntas of land si-Lr. ted I n Vanot.ts survey nunrbers in and around Attapur area r.,,,irltir the litnits of GHMC was endowed to the subject Mutt and ( ). i upancy Rights CeltificrLte was also issued in favour of the srrlr ect Mutt vide procecdings dated 06.01t.2003; that mutatior.r was rLlso eltlcted in revenue records vide proceedings dated 06.0().i0t6; that the appellant without any lnanner of right and title ertr: L ached the land of the stLbject mutt and raised structures and thert-'li re, the pr.esent OA rva:; frted. Along with the said O.A., interlocutorv application in IA.No.778 of 2023 was also filcd sc,:l irrg tenrporary injunction restraining the appellant, his agcnrri. e1c., Iiom undertaking any construction activity in the OA scl.. dule propcrty; that the Tribunal vide irnpugned order had grar i .:d ad interin-r injunctiorr restraining the appellant frorn continuin!r r'onstruction in the OA schedule premises or changing the nat rrc of the OA schedule propefty till fiting of counter and adjorrrncd the case to A ) LNA,,I CMA.No.33 of 2024

05.01.2023. Aggrieved by the said interim order, the present appeal is fited.

6. Learned counsel tbr thc appellant contended that in fact, the wit'e of the appellant is the owner o1' the land adrneasuring 333 square yards in Ptot No.l9l , Sy.No.369, Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the sanre under registered sale deed dated 15.04.2024 bearing document No.3397l2004 and the plot was regularised under LRS scheme; that the wile of the appellant has obtained perrnission for construction, vide permit dated 29.10.2022, and the cottsttuction was being carried out and at that stage, respondent Nos.l and 2 filed the OA before the Tlibunal along with an application for ad interim injunction. He further contended that the Tribunal, without considering the tact that respondents lrave not filed sulficient material evidencing their orvnership, has erroneously granted interim order. Leamed counsel further contended that entile area is covered by structules and therefore, the contention of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the land endowcd to it was encroached by the appellant is untenable. He further contended that the appellant is not the owner of the OA schedule property and his wile 4 t, t\'.4, .l (;)1..1. No.-i3 rtf 2024 is owner of the property, therefore, the OA is batl lbr non-joinder ofnecessary party and finally, he prayed to allow r ris Appeal

7. Pcr contra, learned counsel lor responden-- .,o.1 contcnded that largc extents of land, rvhich includes S),.No. : ()9, are all land belongir:g to subject Mutt; that ORC has also beerr irsued in lavour o1- the subject Mutt and mutation was also effc-r't,:d in prool ol' ownership o1' thc subjcct Mutt. He further conL,,.r,.led tl'rat along rvith the OA, the respondents have filed Sethu,i: . rvlr ich clearly show thrtt the sub.ject Mutt is ou,ner of vast e):l :rrts of lancl in At[apur Viltage, including the OA schedule prol).rrry. [{e lurrher contended that the Tribunal, duly taking into corsideration the rraterial placed on record and also the colt.:ntions ol the respondents. has rightly passed the interim order lcstraining the appellant fiont continuing construction in tht: OA schedule premises or changing thc nature of the OA schecll c plopertv. LIe furlher contcnded that no illegality ol irregularity i. pointed out in the impugned ordcr rvarranting interference by this t ourt and thus, the Apperrl, being devoid of rnerits, is liable to be cli:;r'rissed

8. Perusal of the impugned order would show tlrut thc Tribunal has passed ir-rterim order restraining the appellant I ( rn continuing r*:]ffi c. .:r.i 1, // 5 LNA, J CMA.No.3 j of 2021 construction in the OA schedule premises or changing the nature of the OA schedule property till the filing of the counter and adjourled thc case to 05.01.2023. The appellant instead of filing a counter before the trial Court and contesting the matter, has prelerred the present CMA. g. Today, at the hearing, Ieamed counsel lor the rcspondents , reportcd that the appellant has not yet filed counter in the aforesaid lA bclore the trial Court.

10. ln view of the atbresaid facts and cit'cumstances of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant can take all the defences or grounds which are now being taken in this appeal and contest the matter by filing a countct', by duly placing all thc rnaterial and documents to substantiate his contentions. In the irnpugned order, the Tribunal specifically observed that interinl ordcr rvas granted only till filing of cotlnter, therefbre, obviously. no prejudice would have been caused to the appellant l.rad he contested thc IA by filing counter and contested the matter. I l. Accordingly, this Appeal is disposcd of and the appellant is directed to tlle counter, if any, in I.A.No.778 of 2023 rvithin a period of four rveeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order \r .i%Ed*i{H -- ':.. -;:iq;a1 *g -4i_r, 6 LNA, J < m,4.No.33 of 2024 \ and the fritrunal shall dispose of the said IA or i s own merlts' after duly allbrding opportunity of hearing to bot r tl.re patlies, as earl)'as:ossible.

12. \4isoe llaneous petitiotls pendirlg, if any, sl-rll stand closed No costs. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. RAMANA KRISHNA JOINT REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER I

1. The Telangana Endowments Tribunal, BarkatEura, Hyderabad 2 The Assistant Commissioner. Endowments Departmen , Ranga Reddy District.

3. One CC lo SRI B.SHIV RAM SHARMA, Advocate [OF)l.JC] 4. One CC to SRI J.R.MANOHAR RAO, Advocate [OPLIO] 5. Two CD Copies Pcsd/gh f l\ \ I HIGH COURT DATED:2710312025 JUDGMENT CMA.No.33 of 2024 ,':::;:t. ;''ll' j i q i,:: /.i' t.' :::li;l ,l r, stP 20fr rlI \\. DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL MISCELLANE,OUS APPEAL ( A g t1-)