Back
Can Lessees File Writ Against After Trust's Withdrawn? Supreme Court Says No
Supreme Court Quashes High Court's to Lessees
The on Wednesday delivered a decisive ruling on the limits of , holding that lessees cannot seek protection against through a when the landowner's own challenge was withdrawn. A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar allowed the 's appeal, setting aside the granted by the to the lessees of .
A Long-Standing Land Dispute: From to 2026
The dispute traces back to when the Mandal Revenue Officer, Himayathnagar, issued a notice under , to , which claimed ownership over a 4678-square-meter plot in Hyderabad. The Trust's civil suit was dismissed for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, and its appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. In , the Trust filed a challenging the notices, which was allowed by a . However, the of the High Court reversed that order in , holding that a cannot adjudicate serious factual disputes over .
The Trust then approached the Supreme Court, but its was withdrawn on , with liberty to file a fresh suit—and notably, without any against . Just days later, on , the lessees of the Trust— and others—filed fresh writ petitions before the High Court, seeking to restrain the State from taking . The granted , directing the State not to dispossess the lessees and to unlock the function hall. This order was upheld by the on .
State's Appeal: Lessees Cannot Bypass Earlier Orders
The argued that the lessees, claiming through the Trust, could not be permitted to the same issue after the Trust had withdrawn its . Allowing the writ petitions, the State contended, amounted to an , as the lessees were merely trying to secure an that the Trust could not obtain. The State emphasized that the 's findings—that is not a forum for declaring —had become .
Legal Analysis: Cannot Be Used to Earlier Proceedings
The Supreme Court found merit in the State's submission. The Court observed that once the Trust's
was withdrawn without interfering with the
's order, the lessees could not independently invoke
.
"It was not open for the lessees to prefer a
as the lessees are claiming
through the Trust against whom the
of the High Court has already passed an order and the
against the same has been withdrawn,"
the bench noted.
The Court further remarked that the timing of the lessees' petitions—filed immediately after the Trust's withdrawal—indicated an attempt to bypass the earlier
.
"Since the Trust could not have filed a
, the lessees came forward for preferring a fresh set of
only to secure an
which otherwise could have been considered only by the
,"
the judgment stated.
Key Observations
In its reasoning, the Supreme Court made the following pivotal observations:
"Once the High Court has already recorded a finding in that it was not open for the to record finding of , a second filed by the lessees only for ought not to have been entertained."
"It is interesting and significant to notice that the preferred by the Trust was on without interfering with the order passed by the ... the present round of was preferred by the lessees and not by the Trust, on or after ."
Court's Decision: Appeals Allowed, High Court Orders Set Aside
The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeals, setting aside both the 's order of , and the 's judgment of . The Court did not interfere with the State's action of locking the premises. However, it clarified that the civil suit already filed by the Trust (on ) shall be decided on its own merits, and the Trial Court is free to adjudicate without being influenced by the Supreme Court's observations.
The ruling reinforces the principle that under cannot be used to earlier judicial orders, especially when the primary party has and withdrawn its challenge. It serves as a for lessees and other seeking to issues that have been against their predecessors.
