The High Court · 2025

PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 22.07 '2025 in W'P No.21139 of 2025 Counsel forthe Petitioner: SRl. K. PRADEEP REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1to4: SRI L' RAVINDER' AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: AGP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No'6: SRI P' SAI RAM GOUD The Court made the following: ORDER IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.2ll39 0F 2025 ORAL ORDER: Hcard I\{r. K. Pradecp Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners, Mr. L. Ravintlar, learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue .appearing on behalf of rcspondent Nos. I to 4, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleadcr for Home and Mr. pendem Sai Ram Goud. leamed counsel for resltondent No.6.

2. Petit,oner No.2 is the husband of petitioner No. l. petitioncr No. I is the atrsolute owner and possessor of the lands admeasuring Acs.8.39ll: guntas in Survey Nos.4/A l, 4/A2, 4/El, 4tr,12, 7/E ancl 7/1. situated at I,alakeedu Village and Mandal, .Surl.apct Districr, Respondenr No.6 has filed a suit vide O.S. No.35 of 2023 (Old No. l0 of 2023) pending on the file of principal District and Sessions Judgc. Surv-apet for sp,:cific pertbrmance of agreement of sale. The said suit is pending. l'herc is no interim order. petitioner No. l has filed a suit vide O.S. No.353 of 2023 againsr respondent No.6 herein seeking pcrpetual iniunction in respect of the major portion of the subject propeny i.e., Acs.1.l8 guntas in Survey No.4/A,{ 1, Acs.l.20 guntas in Survey No.4/AA-2, Acs.1.20 guntas in Survey Nos.4iE/2, Acs.2.20 guntas in Survcy No.7/l and Ac.0.35 guntas in Survel, r1o.7/E and a single plot 2 KLJ W P. No-21l ]9 of2025 having dimensions with 30' X 50' The said suit is also pending' 'fhere are 1o interim orderc.

3. During pendcncy of the said suits, on the request of respondent No.5 on 15.04.2025, respondent No'3 promulgated the proceedingi undcr Section - 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita' 2023 (fbr short'BNSS'). Challenging the said proceedings' thc petitioners filed the prescnt writ Petition'

4. Respondent No.3 has issued notice dated 29 05 2025 f-rxing the inquiry on 21.06.2025. According to the petitioners' they have appeared before respondent No.3 and submitted counter' stating about their title an<l also pcndency of the aforesaid suits and they have also tllcd copy of latest pattadar pa-ssbook-cum-title deed' Without considcring the same' respondent No.3 promulgated the proceedings under Section - 164 of the BNSS.

5. In the impugned order dated 27 '06 '2025 ' there is relerence to six (06) crimes, names of complainants, accused and stage ol orime etc'' are specifically mentioned in the said impugned proceedings' Pcrusal of the same would reveal that on the complaint lodged by respondent No'6, respondent No.5 has registered four (04) crimes' on the complaint lodged 3 KL,J W.P. No.2t t39 ot202i by petitioner No.2, the very same police station has registered two (02) more crlmes.

6. In the counrer liled by the petitioners before respondent No.3, they have specifically informed about pendency of the aforcsaid two cases. Even then, there is no consideration of the said aspects.

7. As discussed above, O.S. No.35 of 2023 liled by respondent No.6 is for specific performance of agreement of sare. o.S. No.353 of 2023 is filed by peririoner No. I against respondent No.6 for perpetual injuncLion. 'l-hc said suits arc pending. Respondent No.3 cannot decide prima facie title and possession of the parties under Section _ 164 of BNSS. The szrme is impermissible. The said principle was also laid down by the I{on,ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar pradesh v. Ashok Kumar Nigamr. M. sitrdiq @) through L.Rs. v. Mahant Suresh Das2 ivherein thc Apex Court categorically held that respondent No.3 on coming to know about pendency of the said suit, he cannot promulgate the proceedings undcr Section _ 164 of the BNSS. The said principle was also followed by a Division Bench of ershvhile High Court of Andhra pradesh at Hyderabad in B. Madan Mohan Reddy v. Sub_ 12013, 3 SCC j72 r. '. t htor-; scc r 4 KL,J W.P. No 2l ll9 o12025 Divisional Magistrate & Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha,' Khammam3

8. As discussed supr4 the petitioners have informed about pendency of the aforesaid suits to respondent No.3 by way ol filing countcr. lrven then. there is no consideration of the same by respondent No.3. Thercfore, the impugned proccedings, dated 27 -06.2025 ol rcspondent No.3 are contrary to the proccdure laid down under Section - 164 of the BNSS and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in thc alorcsaid dccisions. 'fhus, the said impugned proceedings are liablc to be set asidc and accordingly the same are set aside.

9. this writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners and respondent No.6 to pursue the aforesaid suits and interlocutory applications filed by them in the said suits ancl raise all the contentions and grounds which they have raised in thc present writ petition, in the aforesaid suits, and it is for the trial Couft to consider thc same. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. '. 1tooa1+ a'r.o oot loui l KL.] W.P. No.2l 139 of2025 As a seque[ thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the ivrit petition shall stand closed SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, T.S.,Hyderabad. OFFICER Huzurnagar, Suryapet District. 1 ][E. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, 2. THE DISTRICI- COLLECTOR, Suryapet District, At Suryapet. 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE and REVENUE DIVTSTONAL 4. THE TAHSILDAR. Palakaveedu Mandal, Suryapet . 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PatakaveedL potice Station, patakaveedu 6. One CC to SRl. K. PRADEEP REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court for ttie State of Telangana at 8. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court forthe State of Telangana, at 9. One CC to SRl. P. SAI RAM GOUD, Advocate [OpUC] 10. 'Two CD Copies Village, Suryapet District Hyderabad [OLIT] Hyderabad [OLIT] B IVI BS (F HIGH COURT DATED:1 1tO9t2O2S I ,t'a.' :t7: s 1,.:. l.c (' i, :) il3 22 siP m \.i. ,'t,rr/ ORDER WP.No.21139 of 2O2S \ - r,-.- \: . -),'' ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (* ,--<'-'--- zo\cu\rl