The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant ad- interim injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners/plaintiffs over the petition schedules i)Schedule-A. H. No.13-6-438/2/9, admeasuring 161 square yards, situated Jaffarguda, Hyderabad. ii)Schedule_8. H No 13-6-131/Dt82r711, admeasuring 32.00 square yards, situated at Jaffarguda, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the present CRp. Counsel for the petitioners: SRt D.KAVAL KUMAR counselfor the Respondents: Sri Bffi;[AXrlrJJil*LA, Gp FoR McpL The Court nrade the following: ORDER w IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI(A YARA CM REVISION PETITION No. L546 of 2O2S 15th DAY OF DECEMBER. 2025 Between: K.Kiran, Hyderabad and another. . petitione rs / appellants/ plaintiffs AND The Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad and others. . . . respondents / defendants ORDER: Heard Sri. D.Kaval Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri.Bhaskar Muthyala, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated

25.03.2025 in C.M.A. No. 97 of 2024 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order passed in I.A. No. 1025 of 2024 in o.S. No. 4186 of 2024 dated 04.LO.2O24, wherein, a petition filed by appellants/petitioners seeking temporary injunction to restrain the 2 Rr,_ crp_1546-2025 respondents from interfering with the suit schedule properties consisting of schedule A and B properties i.e.,H.No.13-6-43g /2/g admeasuring 161 sq.yards at Jaffarguda, Hyderabad and H.No.13_ 6-43r lD i 82 /7 / | admeasuring s2 sq. yards at Jaffarguda, Hyderabad, has been dismissed. -

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein have filed a s,it in o.s. No. 4rg6 of 2024 for perpetuar injunction against ttre respondents herein who are official respondents and the unofficial respondent No. 3 to restrain them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment and from causing any interft:rence with construction of the petitioners over the suit schedule A and B properties. The case of the petitioners herein is that they ir.re absolute owners and possessors of schedule A and schedule 1l properties having purchased them under registered sale deed ,locument Nos. 3z4T of 2015 and 3T4g of 2015 dated o1.o9.2072 from one E.ponchamma. After purchase of the properties, the petitioners allowed the vendors to do scrap business in the Schedule A and B properties. The vendors did not vacate the premises in spite of several requests made by the petitioners. Therefore, r:he petitioners submitted a representation to GHMC officials inf<>rming them about the unauthorised scrap business being carrir:d out in the premises. Upon receipt of such a 3 RY,J crp_1546_2025 complaint, the GHMC officials have issued a demolition order dated 1O.O7.2024 and also got removed the scrap business from Schedule A and B properties and said properties were handed over to the petitioners. Thereafter, the respondents who had no right or interest over the Schedule A and B properties are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. The respondents have an eyesore with respect to Schedule A and B properties. There was an attempted criminal trespass on

19.08.2024 and the same was resisted. Thereafter, again on

27.08.2024, the respondents with their henchmen carne to the properties and interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. There is possibility of collusion bet'*reen the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and there is possibility of illegal encroachment on the suit schedule properties. The illegal attempts made by the respondents are resisted with the help of the neighbours. However, the respondents threatened the petitioners with dire consequences and when a complaint is sought to be lodged against the respondent No. 3, the police refused to take the same. In the circumstances, a suit in o.s. No.4186 of 2024 for perpetual injunction is filed. when notice was served on the respondents, they did not appear and therefore, were set ex parte. 4 Rr,- crp_1546-2025

4. The trial court dealt with the interlocutory application i.e., I.A. No. 1025 of 2024 by examining the exhibited documents filed ! ): by the pet:tioners under Exs.P.1 to P.16. Ex.p.1 is certified copy of gift settlenrent deed No.1048 of 2012 dated 16.03.2012; Ex.p.2 is the certifie'd copy of sale deed document No.2o08 of l99g dated r6.o7.199tt; Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of sale deed document No.3747 ol'2014 dated 01.09.2014; Ex.p4 is the certified copy of sale deed <locument No.3748 of 2oL4 dated 01.09.2014; Ex.p.5 is the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner Karwan Circle-13, Khairtabad zor:'e uide number 3 I KHBO oor42\973 dated o7.o8.2o24; Ex.P.6 is the GHMC propert5r tax payment receipt; Ex.P.7 is the Hyderabad Metropolitan water Supply and Sewerage Board onlir:e bill payment receipt; Ex.P.S is the GHMC property tax payment receipt; Ex.P.9 letter No.2 /9 I ACl']/TPS/ Ct3 /KZ / GHMC /2024. dated O4.o7 .2024; Ex.P.10 notice No.2 /9 / ACI']/TPS/ Cr3 /KZ / GHMC /2023 dated 12.12.2023; Ex.P.11 is l.he statement of encumbrance on property; Ex.p.12 is the Market value assistance certificate dated 30.08.2024; Ex.p.13 is the corrLplaint dated 27.o8.2o24 addressed to the Deputy Municipal c:ommissioner, Khairtabad, GHMC, Hyderabad; Ex.p. 14 \q trr. complaint dated 22.o8.2o24 addressed to the commissioner, -7 5 RY,J crp_1546_2025 Tank bund, lst floor, GHMC, Hyderabad; Ex.P.15 is the certified copy of sale deed document No.l324 of 1994 dated 20.09.1993; Ex.P.16 is the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, Karwan Circle- 13, Khairtabad Zone uide No.3I2997OOOOO2O77 dated

13.03.2023. Upon examining this entire evidence, it is held that Exs.P.1 to P.16 show that the petitioners are owners and possessors of the Schedule A and B properties and that the respondents have taken steps for removal of unauthorised construction in said suit schedule A and B properties. Since the official respondents are taking action in accordance with provisions of GHMC Act and TB-bPass Act, it is held that the petitioners have failed to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience and therefore, the petition i.e., I.A. No. 1025 of 2024 was dismissed

5. The petitioners herein aggrieved by the Order dated O4.|O.2O24 carried the sarne in appeal uide C.M.A. No. 97 of 2024 before the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Upon examining the order passed by the trial court in LA. No.1O25 of 2024 and also the documentar5r evidence, the Appellate Court held that as per Exs.P.1 to P.B, P.15 and P.16, the petitioners are owners of the suit schedule properties and the title deeds prove the same. Further, the Exs.P.S, P.6, P.7, P.8 and P.9 proved the possession of the petitioners over the suit schedule 5 Rv,. crp_1546_2025 propertir-'s. However, it is held that Ex.p.lo is the show cause notice issued by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for raising unauthorised construction, seeking explanation as to why said unauthorised constructions cannot be removed. Under Ex.p.9, the official .espondent Nos. 1 and 2 have requested the police provide rlufficient force and power for removing the unauthorised construcLion. It is held that the respondent Nos. L and 2 have authority to remove the unauthorised constructions by giving statutory notice. In such an instance, the petitioners cannot prevent tlee authorities by taking aid of Courts to create barriers by seeking injunction. It is held that injunction orders cannot be passed to prevent the GHMC officials from performing their lawful duties. Since the GHMC officials have initiated steps as per provisionsr of the GHMC Act, they cannot be prevented by granting temporarl'exemption. As such, the Appellate court also dismissed the c.M.A, leading to filing of the present civit Revision petition.

6. In grounds of revision, the petitioners pleaded that the interlocutory application filed seeking temporary injunction while demonstrating pima facie case and possession over the said scheduled properties has been dismissed and thereby, there is a material irregularity committed. It is pleaded that Exs.p.1 to p.16, more parti,:ularly the registered sale deeds under Exs.p.3 and p.4 / 7 RY,J crp-1546-2025 andpropertytaxreceiptsExs.P.6andP.Sclearlyestablishboth ownership and lawful possession of the petitioners over the suit schedule properties. The Courts below have failed to consider that no final demolition order or adjudication of unauthorised construction was produced by GHMG. Further, it is pleaded that the trial Court failed to reason and consid'er pleadings against respondentNo.3whohasbeenrandomlyimpleadedwithout clarification of pleadings. According to the petitioners' they have balance of convenience and it is clearly in their favour as they are in possession by GHMC after eviction of the vendors' The courts belowhavewrongfullypresumed'thataninjunctionorderwould hinderthelawfuldutiesofGHMCunderGHMCActandTS-bPass Act rnhen the relief was limited to protecting the possession of petitioners against high-handed interference and to restrain unlawful demolition. tt is pleaded that the trial court as well as the AppellateCourthavefailedtoapplywell-establishedlegal principles that possession, even without title, is to be protected againstunlawfuld'ispossessionund'erSection6ofspecificRelief Act.ThepetitionershereinweredeniedPoliceprotectionandwere directedtoapproachtheCivilCourt.ThetrialCourtandthe AppellateCourthavegivenoverlyemphasisontheissueof unauthorised construction with ownership rights' The petitioners 8 Ry,- crp_1546_2025 are claiming their lawful ownership but not unauthorised structur<:s. It is further pleaded that the order passed by the Appellater Court, travels beyond the limited scope of Interlocutory application considerations and renders the findings which are similar to a final judgment. As such, it is prayed that the impugned orders p€rssed by the trial Court and the Appellate court, are to be set aside.

7. A p,erusal of the plaint pleading shows that there is no dispute about the ownership and possession of the petitioners over the suit fichedule A and B properties under registered sale deeds marked under Exs.P.3, P.4, P.6 and p.7. Then a question arises in what circumstances the petitioners have sought injunction against the respo.edents. It appears that there are two grievances to the petitionersi which are distinct and separate against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on one hand and the respondent No. 3 on the other hand. on one hand, when the vendors were permitted to carry on with scrap business in Schedule A and B properties, subsequently they did not vacate in spite of requests by the petitioners. when such a situation prevailed, the petitioners have given complaint to GHMC i.e. respondent Nos. 1 and 2 about the vendors carrying on unauthoris,ed scrap business. Apparently, respondent Nos. I and 2 issued notice and closed the scrap business and handed over 9 RY,J crp_1546-2O25 possession to the petitioners. This narration of events shows that the petitioners have used respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to get possession over suit scheduleA and B properties from their vendors by closing do'vvn the scrap business.

8. The next issue is the grievance against the respondent No. 3 by the petitioners. When the petitioners perused their grievance against respondent No.3, it is seen that a blanket allegation is made against all the respondents about causing interference and attempts at illegal encroachment into suit schedule A and B properties. A collusion is alleged between the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. There is a pleading about the respondent No. 3 running business u,ithout trade license and fire permission in front of the suit schedule properties. When respondent No. 3 is running scrap business in front of the suit schedule properties, seeking injunction against him is a different proposition. It does not stand to reason that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who are Government officials would collude with respondent No. 3 either to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the suit schedule properties or running illegal scrap business in front of the suit schedule properties. \ 10 Ry,. crp_1546_2025 .

9. From the Exhibits marked, it is gathered that as per Ex.p.9 there is an unauthorised shed constructed in the suit schedule propertier; and therefore, a showcase notice dated 12.12.2023 *,as issued u.der Ex.p. 10 by the GHMC to the occupier of the suit schedule A and B properties as to why the unauthorised constructions should not be demolished unless sufficient cause is shown. From the contents of Exs.p.9 and p.10, it can be inferred that the petitioners herein have made unauthorised constructions and theref<lre, a show cause notice dated r2.r2.2o23was issued by the respo,dent Nos. 1 and 2. The aforementioned fact and circumstances show that the petitioners have a distinct grievance against respondent No. 2 for issuing Exs.p.9 and p.10 i.e., letter dated o4.o7.2o24and show cause notice dated r2.r2.2o23 and their grievetnce against respondent No. 3 is distinct as he is running un.uthorised business in front of the suit schedule A and B properties premises.

10. comin,g to the aspect of grant of temporary injunction against municipal authorities, the Hon,ble Supreme court in case of Municipal ciorporation of Hgd.erq.bq.d. a. phitomena Educqti,on LL RY,J crp_l546_2025 Foundqtion of India, Hgd.erabadl, at paragraph No. 78 held as follows "78. ...(6). As no injunctiort can be passed by a Court permitting a person to uiolate the law, or to restrain municipal authoities from discharging their statutory duties/ functions, the Court should appraise itself of the releuant stafittory prouisions and not be suayed entirely by the self-seruing pleas and euidence adduced bg the person seeking its interuention. (9) The order of the Court should not disable municipal authorities from monitoing and ensuing that construction of such buildings is in accordaruce with the statutory prouisions prescribed iru the Act, the Bye-laws and the regulations." (verbatim reproduced)

11. In view of the above judgment, this Court is in conformity with the findings of the trial Court and the Appellate Court about an injunction order causing interference with lawful duties of GHMC i.e., respondent Nos.l and 2. Only when there is illegal interference, temporary injunction relief can be granted. In the instant case, there is no such illegal interference on the part of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioners herein apparently made some unauthorised construction and therefore, they have issued a show cause notice dated 12.12.2023 and also a letter dated O4.O7.2024 lunder Exs.P.9 and P.10. The respondent Nos. I and 2 were doing their duty and therefore, irrespective of the fact that the '2007 SCC Online AP 819 72 R!,r crp_1546_2025 petitioners are lawful owners and also in possessors of suit schedule properties, they are not entitled to grant of temporarSr \ injunction to restrain respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with the suit s;chedule A and B properties.

12. wir:h respect to case against respondent No.3, it is seen that the only rrllegation against him is that he is running unauthorised business in front of the suit schedule A and B properties. There is no proof about existence of such business in the documents marked trnder Exs.P.l to P.16. There is allegation about the vendors doing scrap business in the suit schedule A and B properties and its removal. There is no clarity about whether respondert No. 3 is one of those vendors or a third party. The grievance cf the petitioners against the respondent No. 3 is unclear. In case a rrnauthorised business is run in front of suit Schedule A and B prcperties, in case the petitioners do not have ownership over such properties, the petitioners cannot claim interference on the part of'respondent No. 3 for carrying on business in the place in front of suit schedule A and B properties. In view of the ambiguity prevailing about the grievance of petitioners against the respondent no. 3 and in the absence of convincing case about the business of respondent No. 3 which apparently is located in front of the.p{operties of the petitioners, no relief of temporary injunction 13 RY,J crp_1546_2025 can be granted. In view of the aforementioned discussion' this court sees no reason to interfere with the orders passed by both the trial Court and the Appellate Court. There are no grounds to interfere with said orders and the civil Revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

13. In the result, the civil Revision Petition is dismissed' There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed a ,/TRUE COPY/' SD/. N SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lll Additional chief Judge, city civil court at Hyderabad. 2. The Vl Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad' 3. One CC to SRt D.KAVAL KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV ,High court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies NVB/PSL {w HIGH COURT DATED:1 511212025 ORDER CRP.Ncr.1546 o12025 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION l(s tllz[zc.