IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons, and the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:

“to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order, or direction i. Declaring the action of the Respondent no 2 to 4 and more particularly Respondent No.4 in dispossessing the Petitioners by use of force from land admeasuring 1 Acres 38 guntas in Survey No.773, situated at Kandi Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District, Telangana and aiding non-official Respondents to enter into the property pending the civil dispute as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the constitution and

ii. Consequently, direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to restore the possession of land admeasuring 1 Acres 38 Guntas in Survey No.773, situated at Kandi Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District, Telangana to the Petitioners by removing the encroachers and unsocial elements and

iii. Direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful possession of the subject property and to pass such other order or orders which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

iv. Direct an independent enquiry be conducted by a District Judge against the illegal and high-handed action of the Respondent no.4.”

2. The brief facts of the case that are necessary for disposal of the writ petition are stated hereunder :

The petitioners and the respondent Nos.5 and 6 claim to be Directors of M/s. Silamkot Finance Private Limited, Begumbazar, Hyderabad, a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act. The said company also owns land admeasuring Ac.1-38gs in Sy.No.773, situated at Kandi Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District, having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 13.08.1999 bearing document No.3190/1999. It is the case of petitioners that respondent Nos.5 and 6 without consent of remaining Directors, on a fabricated Board Resolution dated 14.07.2004, sold the subject land in favour of family members of respondent Nos.5 and 6 by executing a document dated 29.11.2004 bearing No.13104/2004, who in turn sold the subject property in favour of some of their relatives under registered sale deed dated 09.03.2005 bearing document No.2654/2005. It is further case of the petitioners that having come to know about the fraudulent activity and illegal sale of land belonging to the Company, petitioners filed a complaint on the file of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. On being referred, the said complaint was registered as a crime and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 423, 424, 468, 471, 201 r/w 34 of IPC vide C.C.No.100 of 2011. It is further case of the petitioners that the said C.C. was dismissed vide judgment dated 26.06.2018. Aggrieved by the same, Criminal Appeal No.368/2020 was preferred on the file of this Court and the same is pending for adjudication. In the meanwhile, representing the company, petitioner No.5 filed a suit vide O.S.No.337/2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, at Sangareddy against Respondent Nos.5, 6, 10, 11, 12 and 13 and others, seeking to declare the sale deeds and the partition deed executed by the respondents on the company property as null and void and the same is not binding on the petitioners. It is stated by the petitioners that the said suit was dismissed vide Judgment and decree dated 02.06.2016. Aggrieved by the same, A.S.No.81/2018 was filed on the file of Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy and the same is pending. It is further case of the petitioners that notwithstanding the execution of sale deeds by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in favour of respondent No.10, 13, 14 and Nagari Indumathi (wife of respondent No.12) and dismissal of the suit, they are in continuous possession of the subject property as evidenced by the Advocate Commissioner’s report dated 25.01.2021 in I.A.No.2091 of 2020 in I.A No.17