High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd Respondent for not to consider the Petitioners representation filed on 23.12.2024 and consequently direct the 2nd Respondent to tsieze the Bore Well excavated by the 3d and 4th Respondents in the Schedule Property for an extent of Ac 2.10 Gts in sy No. 594/4, for an extent of Ac 2.10cts in sy No. 594/AA total admeasuring for an extent of Ac 4.20 situated at Nereda Village of chityal Mandal, Nalgonda District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in s rpport of the petition, the High Court may be p eased to direct 2nd Respondent to consider the representation filed by the Petitioners on 23.12.2024 Pending Jisposal of the main Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SEETHARAM REDDY KANCHARI..A Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 and 2: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4:-- The Court made the following: ORDER ) THE HON'BLE SRI .IUSTICE C.\/.BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4593 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is Iiled seeking the following relief: "...to issue an appropiote u.tit, order or direction more particulorly one in the nature of 'Wit of Certiorai': i) Declaring the oction of respondent No.2 for not consideing the representation dated 23.12.2024 submitted by the petitioners as illegal, arbitrary ond contrary to lcLu.t; and ii) Consequently, direct respondent No.2 to seize the boreuill excauated by respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the schedule propertg to an extent of Ac.2.1O gts., in Sy.No.594/A, to an ertent of Ac.2.1O gts, in Sy.No.594/AA, in total Acs.4.20 gts., situated at Nereda Villoge, Chitgal Mandal, Nalgonda or pass appropiate order.--"

2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the lands to an extent of Ac.2' 10 gts', in Sy.No.594/A and to an extent Ac.2.10 gts., in Sy.No.594/AA respectively, situated at Nereda Village, Chifyal Mandal, Nalgonda District. When respondent Nos.3 and 4 disputed the right and title of the petitioners and caused obstruction for their enjoyment over the subject properties, they have instituted O.S.No.437 of 2024 on the file of the Principle Junior Civil 2 Judge, Nalgrrnda, seeking perpetual injunction. Vrde or,:ler dated

1.4.O8.2O2,+ in I.A.No.476 of 2024 in O.S.No.437 of 2'.024, t}:,e learned trial Court has granted ad interim injunction n favour of the petitic ners and the same was extended subsequetrtly.

3. The g';rievance of the petitioner is that du :ing the operation of the said ad-interim injunction, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are f< rcibly entered into the subject properties tnd they have dug r,l-. e bore-wells and drawing water, which is causing much incor venience to the petitioners for cultivab ng their lands. 4 . Consi< lr:red the submissions of learned coun se. for the respective pr.rties and perused the record-

5. Admrtre dly, it is stated that the petitioners have ir-rstrtuted a suit u'here.n the trial Court has granted ad-interim injunction vide order lated 74.O8.2024 in i.A.No.476 of '..\O24 in O.S.No.437 of2024.It is the further case of the pel-itiorrers that though thc ad-interim injunction of the trial Cou rt is in subsistence. respondent Nos.3 and 4 are interfering udth the peaceful posscssion and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject properties. As alleged by the petitioners, if respondent Nos. 3 ancl z are violating the injunction orders of the trial r.l 3 Court, they have to approach the trial Court by way of appropriate application. Pending adjudication of the said suit' the petitioners approached this Court stating that respondent Nos.3 and 4 are forcibly entered into the subjept properties and dug bore-wells and causing inconvenience to their enjoyment over the subject properties. Thus the parties to this writ petition are inviting this Court to adjudicate upon the issues relating to right, title, and possession of the said property ln view of the serious dispute with regard to right, title, and possession of the subject property, writ petition is not the appropriate remedy' especially in the absence of examination of the documents relating to title and possession of the respective parties'

6. ln Mohan Pandeg us. llsha Rani Raigari"r the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "6: xxxx..... It has repeatedlg been held bg this Court as atso bg uaious High Courts that a regular suit is the appropiate remedg for settlement of disputes relating to properlg -ig//:s bettueen piuate persons and that the remedy under Articte 226 of the Constitution shall not be auailable except tuhere uiolation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authoitA is alleged' And in such o case, the Court uill issue appropriate direction to the ieuqnce of the resPond'ent autharjtA concetned. If the reol g '(1992) 4 scc 61 4 is agatnst the initiation of criminal proceedings, ano the orde-rs f)assed ond steps taken thereon, she must autdl of the rer,-tzdA under tI'Le general la u.t including the Crit:tinol Procedlt.e Code. The Htoh Court cannot alloru constltr Llional iurisdiction to be used for decidinq disp,ies. orw ht rah remedies, under the eneral lau, ciuil or cim incLl, are o.uqilable. It is not intended to replace the ordii74ru !e4e4n ,-:; brl want of a suit or a?Dlication auatlable to a p litiqant. The iurbdiction i"s s ecial and extrao rdinaru and slpllL not be exercised casuallu or liqhtlu." (empL,asis sttpplieT).

7. ln Dutq.rka Prasad Agarual a. B.D. Agarual2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court obser-ved as follows: "T'he Hrqh Court u.thile exerctsing a power of judicial ret'tew is con<:e zt.ed utith illegalitg, irrationality and proceaural impropit tq of an order passed by the State or a statutory authoitll Remedy un.der Article 226 of the Constitutiot of India cct t.n.ot be inuoked for resolution of a piuate latu dispute a.; contra distingtbhed from a dispute ituoli.ting public lau., character. It is abo uetl-settled that .t ,tit remed.g i.; not auailable for resoluticn of a properlg or a title dispute."

8. Thus, i1 is well settled that this Court is not having jurisdiction trt delve into the disputes and come to a cotrclusion with regard lc right, title and possession of the partier; in the '1zooq r> scc 2,lo 5 absence of determining the validity or otherwise of their entitlement being decided at the first instance.

9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India, for granting relief as sought by the petitioner and the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. However, since it is stated that the petitioners have instituted civil suit vide O.S.No.437 of 2024 against respondent No.3, the parties are relegated to agitate their grievance in the said suit, in accordance with law.

10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition shall stand closed No order as to costs //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA UTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to Sri Seetharam Reddy Kancharla, Advocate IOPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies To, TJ BS HIGH COURT DATED:1710212025 ORDER WP.No.4593 of 2025 gE l.\l 1 AC a< k I \. t\.7,, \-r 0 i [?i 2[25 :ji .^-' '/ r) 1-:5 1, i: .2 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS