High Court · 2026

6. NAVEEN KUMAR REDDY, S/o. Srinivas ReddyAged about Years, Occ. Unknown R/o. H. No. 3-98, Bandivelkacherla, Kulkacherla Mandal, Vikarabad District ...RESPONDENTS 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 topleased to issue a Writis, Order/s more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 4 in not conducting Moka Panchnama and in not issuing possession-cum-Panchnarna Report, as being illegal arbitrary and u nconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to conduct Moka Panchnama and issue Possession-cum- Panchnama Report of the petitroner's land admeasuring Ac. 2.00 Gts in Sy. No. 63, srtuated in Ba nd ivelkacherla, Kulkacherla Mandal, Vikarabad District by set- asiding endorsement vide 8197012025 dated 22 07.2025 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to rssue interim directions to the respondent No.4 to forthwith conduct Moka Panchanama ancl rssue possession-cum-panchanma Report of the petitioners land admeasuring Ac. 2.00 Gts in Sy. No 63, situated in Band rve lkacherla, Kulkacherla Mandal, Vikarabad District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between: 'l G. JYOTHI, W/o. K Venkat ReddyAged about 31 years, Occ. Household R/o H. No 3-98, Bandivelkacherlh, Kulkacheria Mandal. Vikarabad District

2. NAVEEN KUTVAR REDDY, S/o. Srrnivas Reddy Aged about years, Occ. Unknown R/o H. No.3-98, Ba nd ivelkacherla, Kulk-acherla t\ilandal, Vikarabad District PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS AND 1 SHANTAIVA Wo. Krishnaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ Daily labour, R/ o. Band ivelkache rla, Kulkacherla Mandal, Vikarabad Drstrict 2 3 4 THE STATE OF TELANGANA, Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Vrkarabad District THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER. Vikarabad District THE TAHSILDAR. KULKACHARLA IUANDAL Vikarabad District ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Petition under seclion 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 14.09 2o2s in I A.No.1 of 2o2i in W.P.No 24273 ol 2025, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.SHIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.5&6 : SRI JALLI NARENDER The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEL/INGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL WRIT PETITION No.24273 of 2o2s DATE OF ORDER: L2.12.2O25 Between: Shantama AND Petitioner The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others t .. Respondents ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is f,rled seeking the following relief "...pleasetd to lssue a Wil/s Order/ s more partia arly one in the nature of Wit of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respond.ent No.4 in not conducting Moka Panchnama ancl in not issuing possession-cu nrPanchnarno Report as being illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and" consequentlg direct the Respondent No 4 to conduct Moka panchnama and lssue Possession-cu m-ponchnama Report of l'age 2 oi 7 petitioners land admeasuing Ac.2.OO Gts in Sy.No.63, situated in Bandiuelkacherla Kulkoclterla Mand,al Vikarabad District by setting asid.e endorsement uid.e B/ 97O/ 2025, dated 22. O7.2025... "

2. Heard Sri P.Shiva Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government pleader Revenue, for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Jalli Narender, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that at the time of her marriage with her husband in the year 1997, an agreement dated 10. 12.lgg7 was executed by the husband of the petitioner in her favour in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.2.O0 guntas in Sy.Nos.63, situated at Bandivelkacherla, Kulkacherla Mandal, Vikarabad District. In the said agreement the subject land is for the security of petitioner and her tiusband,s {irst wife. One Mr. Gopal Reddy was the protecteci tenaxt of the subject land, he was not issued ownership certilicate as such there cannot be transfer of land. I lovvever, on the assuralce given I'age 3 of 7 by I\'lr. Gopal Reddy, the husband neither got registered the sale deed nor mlrtation and further assured that as and whcn Mr. Gopal Reddy would be issued the ownership certificate, he wor-r1d complete the registration. Since the date of purchase, the husband of the petitioner is cultivating the subject land. Since the date of marriage, the petitioner is also in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property.

4. During the lifetime of Mr. Gopal Reddy, he assured the petitioner and he:r husband that he would complete the registration process after obtaining pattedar passbooks. After the demise of Mr. Gopai Reddy, his son by name Mr.Srinivas Reddy has obtained the pattedar passbook. When petitioner approached Mr. Srinivas Reddy for non- compliance of registration in respect of the subject property, Mr. Srinivas Reddy gave evasive replies. As matrimonial disputes arose between the petitioner and her husband, takir-rg advantage of the same, the husband of the petitioner connived u,ith Mr.Srinivas Reddy and transferred the land in the names of Mr.srinivas Reddy's children i.e., respondent Nos.S and 6 herein.

5. During agriculture season in the month of June, 2024, respondent Nos.5 and 6 interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. When petitioner resisted, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed suits for injunction uide O.S.No.197 of 2024 and 198 of 2024 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Pargi and obtained ex- parte ad-interim injunction order on 02.O9.2024 by misrepresenting. The petitioner also filed counter and written statements in the above suits. The said suits are still pending adjudication. Taking advantage of ex-parte order dated 02.09.2024, respondent Nos.S and 6 are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner submitted multiple representations dated O5.O8.2O24, 17.06.2025 and I9.O7.2025 before respondent Nos.2 and 4 seeking Moka Panchanama regarding possession. Respondent No.4 has issued an endorsement uideBl97Ol2025, dated 22.07.2025 stating tlrat the subject land is couered by Court case in O.S. l[o. 197 of 2O24 of ad-inteim injunction order, hence the matter is sub judice. The panchanarna has to be conducted by respondent No.4 being the competent authority. Due to the inaction of respondent No.4, there is a threat of law and order problem. FIRs are also registered basing on the complaints filed by the petitioner and respondent No.5. If appropriate directions are not issued to respondent No.4 to conduct panchanzrma ald issue a possession certificate, the petitroner will be put to irreparable ioss. Hence, the present writ petition. 6 . Learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue would submit rhat since the subject matter is covered in O.S.No. 197 ol 2024, tvhere the Civil Court had granted ad_ intei m injunction rn favour of the unofficial respondents and the order of the Civil Court is binding upon unofficial respondents as per Section B of ROR Act, the official respondents are not inclined to intervene into the Civil Court proceedings. Hence, seeks to pass appropriate orders.

7. Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned Senior Counsei representing Sri Jalli Narender, learned counsel for l>age 6 of7 respondent Nos.S and 6 wouid submit that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, respondent Nos.5 and 6 filed suits O.S.Nos.l97 and 198 of 2024 and the sarne are pending adjudication. The Civil Court is the competent authority to decide the said issue. The petitioner without approaching the competent Civil Court has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition, which is misconceived. Hence, seeks to dismiss the present writ petition.

8. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that since the parties to this writ petition are agitating their grievalce before the Civil Court, the petitioner without approaching the competent Civil Court has frled representations before the respondent-authorities, who have no power/authority to interfere with the civil Court proceedings. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to grant libert5z to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court by way of an application seeking appropriate relief. Upon filing such appiication, it is for the Civil Court to l'age 7 of 7 consider the sarne and pass appropriate orders in accordarce rvith lzr',r'.

9. Accordinglv, rhis u,rit petition is disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, sha11 stand dismisscd //TRUE COPY// SD/-C. DEEPIKA TANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER 4N \ I I The Secretary. State Of Telangana. Revenue De r erangana Stale. Hyderabad. PEIIJ4]E nt, Secretariat, To, 1 The District Collector, Vikarabad District 2 3. The Revenue Divisronal Officer, Vikarabad District 4. The Tahsrldar. Kulkacharla tVlandal. Vikarabad Distrlct 5. One CC to SRt p SHtVA REDDy, Advocate [OpUCJ 6 Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Cou( for the State of Telangana One CC to SRt JALLT NARENDER, Advocate. tOpUCl 7 B Two CD Copies BSK BS HIGH COURT DATED:1211212025 xtHlS o( i, :! () o t )- + * 2 4 I B 702 6 z ) * r-r@TC ORDER WP.No.24273 oI2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6t, ,t '-1 )il1 () ,L 3)lt"