IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Ujjal Bhuyan, Surepalli Nanda, JJ.
Gaddam Anil Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana and others – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 465 of 2022
Decided On : 05-06-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 447, 427 – Lease deed – Extent of land admeasuring – Held, Court may mention about provision of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction. Sub-rule (1) says that in case of disobedience of any injunction granted or breach of same, Court granting injunction or any Court to which suit or proceeding is transferred may order te property of person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in meantime Court directs his release – Writ appeal disposes.
JUDGMENT :
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Heard Mr. P.Venu Gopal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant; Mr. T.Srikanth Reddy, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5; Mr. Abu Akram, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 and 7; and Mr. P.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 and 9.
2. This writ appeal is directed against order dated 20.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing writ petition No.17900 of 2022.
2.1 It may be mentioned that appellant as the petitioner had filed the related writ petition assailing the action of the fifth respondent i.e., Station House Officer, Gachibowli Police Station in Cyberabad District in interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Acs.5.01 guntas in survey No.80, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Appellant further sought for a direction to the respondents, more particularly the fifth respondent not to interfere with his possession over the said land.
3. Case of the appellant as pleaded in the writ affidavit is that a wakf institution called Dargah Hazarath Salar-e-Haulia represented by Mutavalli Sultan Ahsan-ud-Dowla situated at survey No.80, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District having land admeasuring Acs.140.00 is registered as per Muntakab dated 13.12.2013 and notified in the Telangana gazette dated 01.04.2014. Out of the aforesaid Acs.140.00 of land, land admeasuring Acs.5.01 guntas was leased out to the appellant from 2015 onwards by various lease deeds. As per the last lease deed dated 12.10.2021, the lease period was extended from 12.10.2021 to 11.09.2022.
4. Appellant has stated that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said extent of land admeasuring Acs.5.01 guntas situated at survey No.80, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (subject land) since the year 2015.
5. Mutavalli of the Dargah had represented before concerned revenue authorities on 24.07.2015 to demarcate and survey Acs.140.00 of land of the said Dargah. Since no decision was taken on such representation, Mutavalli filed writ petition No.34686 of 2016 before this Court. This Court by order dated 26.10.2016 had directed the revenue authorities to consider the representation of the Mutavalli and survey the said land within four weeks.
6. Mandal Surveyor had informed the Deputy Collector on 24.08.2017 that the survey was completed. Deputy Collector vide letter dated 17.11.2018 informed the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records, Ranga Reddy District that the entire extent of Acs.140.00 of land belonging to the Dargah is situated at survey No.80, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and that survey as well as demarcation of the same had been completed.
7. From this, it was contended by the appellant that the subject land leased out to the appellant from the larger extent of Acs.140.00 belonging to the Dargah is also situated within survey No.80, Hafeezpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District within the jurisdiction of Miyapur Police Station and not within the jurisdiction of Gachibowli Police Station. 8. Mutavalli of the Dargah had filed writ petition No.44578 of 2018 before this Court questioning the action of the Miyapur Police Station in interfering with the ownership of the Dargah over the entire extent of land admeasuring Acs.140.00. This Court on 24.12.2018 had recorded the statement of Sub Inspector, Miyapur Police Station that police were not interfering with the ownership and possession of the Dargah over the land to the extent of Acs.140.00. The writ petition was closed by this Court by directing that police authorities of Miyapur Police Station shall not interfere with any civil dispute unless permissible in law.
9. Appellant alleged that certain third parties which subsequently got impleaded as respondent Nos.8 and 9 tried to interfere with the possession of the appellant over the subject land o
The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining status quo in property disputes until final resolution, reinforcing prior judicial orders.
The jurisdiction for disputes concerning Wakf properties lies exclusively with the Wakf Tribunal, not civil courts, reinforcing the necessity for timely legal action under the WAKF ACT.
An injunction order loses its efficacy upon the transfer of a case to a tribunal with jurisdiction, rendering subsequent actions not contemptuous.
Possession of property cannot be disturbed without due process; rights must be protected under constitutional provisions, and authorities are bound by statutory timelines and requirements.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.