JUDGMENT :

UJJAL BHUYAN, J.

1. This judgment will dispose of both Writ Appeal Nos. 665 and 670 of 2022.

2. We have heard Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned Senior Counsel representing learned Advocate General, State of Telangana for the appellants and Mr. V.Ramesh, learned counsel for Mr. A.Chandra Shaker, learned counsel representing the respondent.

3. Writ appeal No. 665 of 2022 arises out of W.P.No. 11293 of 2009 filed by the respondent as the writ petitioner, whereas writ appeal No. 670 of 2022 arises out of W.P.No. 23477 of 2010 also filed by the respondent.

4. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties as per their status in the writ appeals, i.e. appellants and respondent.

5. At the outset, we may advert to the facts as pleaded in the writ proceedings. Writ petition No. 11293 of 2009 was filed by the respondent seeking a declaration that the action of the Tahsildar, Balanagar Mandal in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without any reason or proceeding is arbitrary and highhanded. Consequently, a direction was sought for to the Tahsildar not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the respondent in respect of the property admeasuring 30,181.10 square yards in survey No. 76, Fathenagar village, Balanagar mandal in Ranga Reddy district (referred to as ‘subject land’ hereinafter).

6. In the writ affidavit, respondent stated that it was the owner of the subject land by virtue of sale deed bearing No. 1005 of 1965 dated 15.04.1965. After purchase of the subject land, respondent is in possession of the same without any hindrance from any quarter. It was mentioned that respondent is also having property to an extent of 56,730.57 square meters in survey Nos.74/P and 75/P at Sanathnagar, Hyderabad for the purpose of construction of houses for weaker sections under group housing scheme. In this connection, respondent had entered into a development agreement dated 21.09.2007 with M/s.S.P.Real Estate Developers and M/s.Janapriya Engineering Syndicate Limited. Disputes arose between the respondent and the developers leading to litigation before the city civil court at Hyderabad.

7. In order to protect the subject land from illegal encroachment, respondent decided to fence the same. When the fencing work was going on, the Mandal Surveyor and some local people tried to interfere with the fencing work. Respondent was asked to remove the fence and vacate the premises on the ground that it was in illegal occupation. Mandal Surveyor had directed the respondent to produce relevant documents and materials to show that respondent is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject land. Pursuant to such direction, respondent attended the office of the Mandal Surveyor and furnished documentary evidence. In this connection, respondent also submitted a representation dated 30.05.2009 before the Tahsildar. On being satisfied, Tahsildar gave liberty to the respondent to proceed with the fencing work.

8. When the respondent resumed fencing work, some anti-social elements and a few local political leaders again tried to interfere and threatened officials of the respondent with dire consequences. Respondent approached the Station House Officer, Sanathnagar Police Station for police protection which was granted by the Station House Officer.

9. To the utter dismay of the respondent, officials from the office of Tahsildar again came to the site and asked the respondent to remove the fence and to vacate the subject land.

10. Assailing such action of Tahsildar, respondent had filed the related writ petition being W.P.No. 11293 of 2009.

11. This Court while admitting W.P.No. 11293 of 2009 on 29.06.2009 had passed an order granting interim injunction.

12. The writ petition was contested by the Tahsildar by filing counter affidavit. Stand taken in the counter affidavit was that respondent had filed a declar