logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 TSHC 245 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court for the State of Telangana
Case No : Writ Petition No. 13809 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
Parties : M. Devender Reddy & Others Versus The State of Telangana Represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Hyderabad & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Kuturu Ravinder Reddy Pratap Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Revenue.
Date of Judgment : 27-04-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders / Regulations / Sections Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
- Perpetual injunction
- Temporary injunction
- Police aid
- Due process of law
- Interference
- Possession and enjoyment
- Civil dispute

3. Summary:
The petitioners sought a perpetual injunction to protect their title and possession over a parcel of land in Vikarabad District, alleging interference by various respondents, including revenue and police authorities. The court noted that the dispute with respondent No.10 is a civil matter and that there is no police interference. Without delving into the merits, the writ petition was disposed, directing all respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of the property unless due process is followed. The petitioners were also directed that any request for police assistance in implementing the earlier temporary injunction be considered by respondent No.7. No notice to respondent No.10 was required, and costs were not awarded. Miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. Heard Mr. Kuturu Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for respondents No.1 to 3; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents No.4 to 9; and perused the material on record.

2. Suit in O.S. No.101 of 2019 was filed for perpetual injunction by the petitioners against respondent No.10 on the file of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Vikarabad wherein temporary injunction order dated 30.10.2023 was passed in I.A. No.258 of 2019 in O.S. No.101 of 2019 restraining respondent No.10 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the property bearing Acs.5-37 guntas in Survey No.41, situated at Poolapally Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Vikarabad District.

3. The petitioners claim title and possession over the subject property on the strength of e-pattadar pass books bearing Nos.T07120220794 with Khata No.60033; T07120220561 with Khata No.882 and T07120221199 with Khata No.60531. The grievance of the petitioners is that at the instance of respondent No.6, respondents No.3, 7 and 8 are interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners without following due process of law, as such, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submitted that the dispute pending between the petitioners and respondent No.10 is a civil dispute and there is no interference by the Police authorities with the possession of the petitioners in respect of the subject property.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that the question of interference by the revenue authorities in civil disputes does not arise.

6. However as it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is interference by the respondent authorities with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner in respect of the subject property, without entering into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent authorities not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the property admeasuring Acs.5-37 guntas in Survey No.41, situated at Poolapally Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Vikarabad District, without following due process of law.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought for direction to respondent No.7 to extend Police aid for implementation of the injunction order dated 30.10.2023. It is made clear as and when application is submitted by the petitioners for extending Police aid, respondent No.7 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

8. As the order is passed without entering into the merits of the case, notice to respondent No.10 is dispensed with. However, if respondent No.10 is, in any way aggrieved by this order, he is at liberty to approach this Court, seeking for modification of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition, stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal