High Court · 2025

?3"..:ffi ,:?l",Ifl ulf .?r35{""* ' Iffir:,;:fiXX:?S*er, srisita Ramachandra Swamy rempre Rambash, ...RESPONDENTS 'prii.rrrrrv . Petition under Articre 226 0f Ihe constitution of rndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit rir"o *,"il*itl-,"the High court may be preased to issue an appropriate order or oi.""t]o" ,.io'r" in the nature of writ of mandamus decrarino ttre action of th-e *ro""iJ"il', And 4 in trying to interfere with the peacefur arid enioyment of the p-pu.tv'oJronging to the petitioner to an extent of 99 Sq.yds. or'equivatent i" Ez.io 6q.iitrs., buitt_up area 310 S.Ft., (A.C.C.), situated in SvNo.347, L;;* ;";Xs''Municipat No.4_6_190t2t1tG, ;ikr,',,*1pi$1ffig.i;,ffi [-:=t'arti*h*]t?[ disposses the petitioner from tfre suoiecipr"p,irtv ""' lA NO: 1 oF 2019 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ir'""ti igr, court mery be preased to direct the respondent No 3 and 4 not to interfere in" any manner with the property belonging to the petitioner_to_an extent of 99 s;.Vds .,equivateni tZ-iii.ta Sq.lMtrs., built-up area 3.10-S.Ft., (A.C.C.), situated'in Sy.ru:.a+2, Hori, O"uling Municipal No 4-6-19Ot2t1lG, situited "i nurOrgn, Attrp* Viil;ge,- e iffrrC, Rajendra Nagar Mandat and Municipatity, Ranga i6aoy oiriri"t o""oi"1i oirpo.rr of .the above writ petition . counsel for the petitioner: sRr p. KAsl NAGESWARA RAo REPRESENTTNG FOR SRI. PILLIX LAW FIRM gg1T9J_lgllle Respondent Nos.1 to 3: SRt MANGTLAL NAIK Gp FoR ENDOWMENTS Counsel forthe Respondent NO.4: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following:lCRDER e,*"i.'*,see** D I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL ORD ER: WRIT PE"TITIONNo.19122 0F 20t9 This Writ petition is filed under Art 226 ofConstitution of India seeking the following relief/s:_ ....issue an appropri jnfli:T,r tru:;in*[#H:r'$Hs[i,11k#'i:$:Tv.li"'i";";','; property belongins ,. ,i"" [ri,',1-1- P,^ssessron and enjoyment of the l * ii:.I, r !'ii llid" ::imj r Ut.; :,i?t fifr i8,,.:#H::tffi1}:l1sl,.:3:::ffi :*?#i+#;r,{ Article 19 & 21 oftor rv..+ "., ,.-ii"p1;S",H:Hl,:11:,r.:";",ir"".":,lruoi*", ir," .."p""ii,ii -,,,;:;;-:_';-:"1 I rre suoJect property and pass such other order or orde." . -. -rders,may deem fit and p.opJ. i. ir," i "LilJi of the case...l 2. Heard Mr.p.Kasi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel representing petitioner and Mr.Mangilal Naik, leamed Government pleader for Endowments appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. No representation on behalf of respondent No.4. Perused the record. "1..,,

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject property belongs to one Sri Babu Rao, he had sold the propert5r to the vendor of the petitioner i.e., Mr.p.Ram Reddy, which was registered as document No.6944 of 2013 and the vendor of the petitioner sold the property to the petitioner vide registered sare deed bearing document No.479 of 2017 d,ated 24.O|.2OIZ registered at SRO, Rajendra Nagar, Ranga Reddy District and ) ) 2 subsequently, the petitioner applied for electricity connection vide Service No'S3009770 ald has been paying property tax assessed by GHMC for H No 4-6'lgol2l1lc' Attapur' Rajerdranagar' Ranga ReddY District' Telangana l,earned counsel further submits that there wa s; no claim 4. the respondents LLerein' but whatsoever in the subject lald oo 2O.O8.2O19 respond'ent Nos'3 and 4 visited the premises of the petitioner claiming the land said to be an endorn'rnents land and asked the petitioner to vacate immediately' .by l,earned counsel further submits that the petit-ioner is the 5. owner of the subject' property and residing in the pre'mises from the past several vears ald there was no claim by the respondents at any time before, as such the action of the reslrondents in trying to interfere with the petitioner possession and enjoyment of the subject propert5' is nothing but violation of rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India'

6. Learned cor-rnsel further submits Nos.3 and 4 alleges that the petitioner property, they have to follow the Procedure which is the Endowments Act, u/s.83(1) of that if the resPondent is an encroacher of the as c,ontemplated procedure to be clecidr: the matter and without adcpting such adoPted to I \ 3 t procedure respondent Nos'3 and 4 are trytrg to dispossess the petitioner' Hence' he seeks indulgence of this Court' 7. On the other hand' learned Government Pleader for E@owments representing respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that property stands in the name of respondents and the th" "rb.j""t petitioner is not having any right, interest over the subject property ald the petitioner is in illegal possession of the subject land which is detrimental to the interest of the temple property' Hence, he seeks to dismiss.the Writ Petition' 8. This Court concidered the submissions made by the respective counsel and perused the material available on record' is claiming rights over the subject AdmittedlY, the Petitioner registered sale deed' However' proPerty basing on the respondents are disputing the claim of the petitioner' It is equally well settled legal principle that the disputed g. questions of fact cannot be decided in a summary proceedings under Articl e 226 of the Constitution of India as per the judgments of ttre Apex Court in Shubhas Jaia rts Raies'hlzl,ari 0 II l I I I i I I t Shiaamt and' Radha Krishan Industries as State of Himachal -! Prad.esh2.

10. respondents It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner as well as are claiming rights over the subject property' As there are serious disputes with regard to r:rght' title and possession of the subject property, this Court deems it libertv to the petitioner to approach the approPriate to grant Endowments Tribunal for adjudicating his right rand entitlement over the subject property' Upon such filing' the learned Tribunal application filed by the petitioner as is directed to dispose of expeditiously as possible, strictly in accordance with law' It is made clear that none of the observations mac'r'e by this Court ,the shallpreciudetheTribunalinpassingappropriateorders. 1 1. With the above observation' this Writ Petition 1s disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if an]/, shall stand closed. sD/-siurtL#fiiH',.l$'[iR //TRUE COPY'/ sEcHorrrcen To,

1. 2. 3 4 q 6 7 KKS LS +rutm;l*$tffi**tl*::,,si-*,;i,ffx#"" the srate or reransana roUrr h#ji"'Sl Ettk'LSH*lH-+31fi[1%3J"''3J Two CD CoPies (A- ! A5i

1..,f; 1 !. HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 ORDER WP.No.19122 of 2019 ltll: S14 o L) P 11JuLM z C)I * Os\: 1l * DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (V ffi,{ t