High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 2fr of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the aff,rdavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue orderor dkection rflo{e particu,larly one in the Writ of Mandamus, in declaring the action of the respondents in not returning the original documents pertaining to the petitionerc i.e. 1 ) Pafiedar Pass Book bearing 1 '12394, Khatha No.437 D1.30.09.2008 in faraour of K.Yashoda 2) Sale Deed docurnent No.8948/201O,SR.O.Warangal Dated 01.12.2O1O in favour of K.Yashoda, and 3) Sale Deed Docurnent No.8950/20 1 0,S :R.O.WarangalDaqted 1 . 1 2.20 1 O in favow of K.Shankaraiah 4) Agreement of Sale dated 14.7.2OO9 and 5) Document No.4022|N12,SRO Waranga{ in farrcur of Kuraati Shankaraiah as all these properties are the petiti<mers self acquired properties and are required for Agriculture crop {oan and rcgistration under L.R.S. with KUDA as illegal, arbitrary and unjust consequentia{ly direcl the respondents to release the Original docurnents i.e. { ) Pattedar Pass Sook bearing 112394, Khatha No.437 D1.30.09.2008 in favour of K.Yashoda 2) Sakr Deed document No.8948/2010,S.R.O.Warangal Dated 01.12.2O1O in favour r f K.yashoda, and 3) Sale Deed Document No.8950/2010,S.R.O.WarangalDaqtec 1 .12.2O1O in favour of K.Shankaraiah 4) Agreement of Sale dated 14.7.2O()r and S) Document No-402212012,sRo warangal in favour of Kuraati shankarrl ah to the petitioners so as to enable them for Agriculture crop loan and registrati .rn under L.R.S. with KUDA. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 45760 oF 2017) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Ci urt may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to return the docume r s as given in their representation daled 26.7.2017 by disposing the representil on dated 26.7.2017 by giving an opportunity to the petitioners with regard to the documents referred therein to be returned to them. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI T.G.S.SRIVATSAVA Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : GP FOR GENERAL ADI/I NISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI K.RAIASHEKAR, . (ep., SRI T.BALA MOHAN REDDY, (SG-SP . pp FOR TG ACB) The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURAALE SRI J{JSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WR|TPETITION No. 36853 OF 2017 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Adride 2% of the Constitution of lndia seeking the following relief: "...Io lssue order or dircc,lbn nlr:,re pafticulady one in the Writ of Madamus, in bclaring tte actkn ol the respot*nts in not retuming the original duuncnts peftainirq to the ptitioners i.e., 1) Pattedar Pass B@k beaing 112394, Khatha No.437 Dt.30.09.2008 in favour of K. Yashoda 2) Sale Deed documenl No. 8948/2010, S.R.O., Warangal, Dated 01.12.2010 in fawur of K. Yashoda and 3) Sar. Deed Mument No. 89502010, S.R.O., Warangal, Dated 1.12.2010 in lavour of K. Shankaraiah 4) Agreement of Sab dated 14.7.2N9 and 5) Document No. 402A2012, SRO, Warangal, in favour of Kuraati Shankaraiah as all these propefties are the petitbtets' *lt acguired propedies and are required for Agricukure cmp loan and rcgistration under L.R.S. with KUDA, as illogal, a,bitrary aN unjust, and consequentiatly direct the respondenls {o rcbase the Oiginal documents i.e., 1) Pattedar Pass W Maring 112394, Khatha No. 437 DL 30.09.N08 in {avour of K. Yaslrc,da 2) Sale Deed document No. 8948nO10, S.R.O., Wamngal, Dated 01.12.2010 in favour of K. Yashoda and 3) Sale bed Dooument No. 8950/2O10, SRO, Warangal, Dated 1.12.fr10 in fawur of K. Shankaraiah 4) Agreement of SaIe ddd 11.7.2@9 and 5) Document No. 402A2U2, SRO, WanrqaL in fawur of Kuraati Shankaraiah to the petitioners, so as fo enabb tlcm for Agriculture crop loan and registration under L.R.S. with KIJDA ard to pass sach other order or orders..." 2 A/r"&/ IV.P. No. 16851 012017 -\

2. Heard Mr. T.G.S. Srivatsava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Rajashekar, learned counsel, representin(t iVlr. T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Publi<: trrosecutor for Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), appearing for respondent lr< , 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners r; rbmits that the respondents/authorities have failed to return the < riginal documents belonging to the petitioners, which were earlier take t into possession. Aggrieved by such inaction and seeking appropriale directions for the release of those documents, the present Writ Petition t rs been filed.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Anti-Corru c ion Bureau (ACB) submits that the documents in question were seized I lring the course of search and seizure proceedings conducted in c: rnection with the investigation of a crimrnal case, which has since culm r ated in C.C. No.73 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Sl) 'i and ACB Cases- cum-lll Additional District Judge, Warangal. lt is fur 'rer submitted that prior to the transfer of the case to the ACB Court at VU rrangal, the rnatter was pending before the I Additional Special Judge or SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, whereupon an ad-interim order ()1 attachment of the petitioners' properties was passed on an appropriate lpplication filed by the prosecution. Subsequently, proceedings were initii ted for making the .. ad-interim attachment absolute in Crl.M.P. No.824 of 1l '17. /./ ,i 3 rvl&Jr \Y.P. No. )6853 o.f 2017

5. The petilioners challenged the said order dated 02.07.20'18 betore this Court by filing Criminal Revision Case No. 2808 of 2018, and this Court, by order dated 23.1020fi, set aside the order of the trial Court, directing the trial Court to receive the counter of the petitioners and adjudicate the matter afresh on its merits. lt is stated that the said miscellaneous proceedings are still pending before the lrialCourt and are under consideration. ln view of the pendency of those proceedings, the learned Standing Counsel submits that any direction from this Court at this stage for return of the seized orpinal docurnents would be inappropriate and premature. Hence, he prays for passirB appropriate orders in the circumstances.

6. I have perused the material available on rcoord and considered the submissions of the learned counsel.

7. The explanation offered by respondent No. 2 makes it cbar that the original documents sought to be released were seized during the course of investigation and are conneoted with properties that are the sub.iect matter of ad-interim atlachrnent orders passed by the trial Court. It is also evident from the record that the proceedings for rnaking the ad-interim attachment absolute are still pendirp before the competent Court, and the petitioners are actir,ely partiopatrg in those proceedings. 4 ATR,/ IV.P. No. )6851 o;f 201

8. ln view of the above circumstances, while flr.; Court declines to issue any specific direction for the release of the doct 'nents at this stage, the rights of the petitioners are expressly reserved t approach the trial Court and seek appropriate relief upon adjudicaii rn of the pending miscellaneous petition concerning the confirmir on of ad-interim attachment.

9. Accordingly, this Writ petition stands disposej of, with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, sha I stand closed ro, ,,rRuEcopy,, ^.:PJ'h'lH*ffi / reransiniSiai;"6;;#;s:??,ff31411,1,;ffi ,6Zl Depa rr r ent, secretariat,

1. The principal Secreta ' IffiB,f3'ff"?;flTfJslfJ,:".r"#::,i?8,.ff3J., Banja r Hi,s, Near Sharon 3. One CC to SRt T.c.S. 4 one cc to sR ,,^j;:ilil:;:i:::",,:#l *,,,

5. Two CD Copies. ",, ropucl BSK BSR 'fT HIGH COURT DATED:1511012025 '\ n i I O,J I 1 t itB ?t2$ * i5 Fqr ! I ORDER WP.No.36853 of 2017 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS C@B 4t, w ,frW