High Court · 2025

Department, Secretariat building, Saifabad- Hyderabad. 2. The Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad 3. The Asst. commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. 4. Sri Rakesh Tiwari S/o. Late Shiv Prasad Tiwar, Aged 53 years Occ Business, H. No. 233 497 Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad. (R4 is impleaded as per C.O dt, 06t7t2023 in l.A.No. ,rrOr|.lrrrONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia prayilg 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 especially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring action. of the respondents nqq 2 and 3 in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the agricultural lands in Survey No.24, admeasuring Ac.2.13 gts Survey No.25, admeasuring Ac.1.05 gts, and in Survey No.26, admeasuring Ac.5.!.5 gts., in ail admeasuring Ac.8.23 gts., situated at Kandikal village, Bandldguda Mandal, Hyderabad district as illegal, arbitrary and u nconstitutional and to consequently direct the respondent nos 2 and 3 not to interfere with the petitioners property admeasuring Acs.8.23 guntas in Survey No.24, 25 and 26 at Kandikal village, Bandlaguda Mandal. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 I Petition under Section 15'1 CPC prhying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file the present Additional Affidavit and take the same on record along with the documents filed herewith lA NO: 2 AF 2020 Between: Sri Rakesh Tiwari S/o Late Shiv Prapad Tiwar, Aged 53 years Occ Business, H. No. 233 497 Sultan Shahi, Hyderaba(. ...PETITIONER/PROPOSED RESPONDENTS NO'4 AND 1. Sheri Narsimha Reddy. Sio Srisailam lqddy lged .qbout 65 yrs, Occ' Business, R/o H No.2-73, Kandawada, R.R. Dist, State of Telengana' ...RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER 2 J 4 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secrelariat ouitO irig, Saifabad. Hyderabad Th6 Commissroner of Endowments. Tilak Road, Hyderabad The Asst. Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad, ...RESPO}IDENTS/RESPONDENTS No.1 TO 3 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tO vacate the interim order dated 31 .01 .2020 granted in the above l.A. No. 1 of 2019 in WP. No. 28008 of 2019. IANO:3O F 2020 Between: 1 The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments 2 3 4 Department, Secreiariat building. Saifabad, Hyderabad Th6 Commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad The Asst. commissioner of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. Sri Rakesh Tiwari S/o. Late Shiv Prasad Tiwar, Aged 53 years Occ Business, H. No. 233 497 Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad. (R4 is impleaded as per C.O dt. 06n12023 in l.A.No. 112020.) ...'ET'T.ONER AND :lj 'xiril- Sheri Narsimha Reddy, S/o Srisailam Reddy Aged about 65 yrs, Occ Business, R/rc H.No.2-73, Kandawada, R.R. Dist, State of Telengana. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt.31lO1t2O2O pa"rud in l.A.No. 1/2019 in W.P.No. 28008 of 2019. Counsgl for the Petitioner: SRI R.SUSHANTH REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI AVINASH DESAI The Court made the following: ORDER .)4, i..f#l HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.28OO8 of 2Ol9 ORDER: Petitroner is aggrieved by the interference of respondent Nos.2 and 3 rvith his peaceful possession and enjovment of property 1n Survey No.24 admeasuring Ac.2.13 gts. Survey No.25 admeasuring Ac.1.05 gts., and in Survev No.26 admeasuring Ac.5.O5 gts (Ac.8.23 gts 1n total) situated at Kandikal village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabarl district.

2. f{eard learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Endowments. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit. He would essentially contend that the petitioner is the owner of the subject property b1. acquisition of the land under registered Sale Deed No.1861 of 1978 and that from 1954 55 onwards, the Revenue records show the flow of title. It is a-lso contended that the Revenue authoritieS have also granted Occupanc-y Rights Certificate on 16.10.2008 and therefore the interference of authorities is illegal. I 2 ,.f;

4. l,earned counsel for the respondents, based on the counter aflidavit f,rled by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, would essentially contend that the subject property belongs to Sri Kalika Devi Temple and therefore the Temple is the original owner, and the respondents are only supervisory authorities. It is contended that as the original owner is not made a party- respondent, this writ petition is not maintainable. It is contended that the respondents have been conducting public auction for the past several years, and is evident from the challenge to the auction in a Public Interest Litigation, i.e., WP(PIL) No.41 of 2017 before this Court, however, the WP became infructuous as the auction was cancelled. The allegation that the respondent authorities have interfered when the petitioner was clearing the bushes and leveling the land is totally false. He further contends that the Telangana Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad has jurisdiction to decide the dispute and the writ petition is not maintainable even on that count

5. It is to be noted that essentially the petitioner claims title over. the subject property basing on a registered sale deed, and also \Occupalcy Rights Certificate issued by the revenue authorities, and the legality of his claim is seriously disputed by ,/ 3 the respondent authorities of the Endowment.s Department on the ground that the subject lands belong to the Temple. It is to be noted that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.9O of 2O2O on the file of the lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, u'ith respect to the subject property. In the said Suit, he frled an application, I.A.No.434 of 2O2O, seeking temporary injunction against the respondents. The trial Court passed order dated 15.06.2020 granting interim injunction in favour of the petitioner.

6. Having considered the respective sttbmissions, and perusing the record, admittedly, the subject property was the matter ol.dispute before the trial Court in O.S.No.9O of 2O2O filed by the pet itioner/ plaintiff. The dispute of title essentiaily a question of fact that needs examination and determinzrtion over the course of trial, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the parties to approach the trial Court and agitate their rights 7 . Accordingl,v, the writ petition 1S disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.MOHD. IS ASSISTANT REGIS L R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To Saifabad. Hvderabad, State of Telangana. '1 . The Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat building' 2 The commi6sioner of Endowments Tilak Road' Hyderabad 3. The Asst. commtssioneT of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. +. One CC to SRI R.SUSHANTH REDDY. {dvocate-[OPuC]- ";, ,/ at flyderabad. [OUT]

5. Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, Htgh Court for tne State of terangana, 6. On-e CC to SRI AVINASH DESAI, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies I PSK. BSK HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 810212025 I \ ORDER WP.No.28008 of 2019 g ( e o $e s- 1 0 i ltnn 2[25 t t a) fsprit ctrgO * DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \o .q@ Xr"