Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15670
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SARATH, J
Shaik Fareed – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7248 of 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: learned Counsel
For the Respondents: learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home
Property rights cannot be infringed without due process of law.
Headnote:The writ petition was filed questioning the actions of the respondents interfering with the peaceful possession of land. Despite the court granting interim orders, the respondents did not file a counter to deny the averments. The court directed that respondents should not interfere with possession without due process of law. Due process must be adhered to when affecting property rights.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interference with possession (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. legal representation regarding due process (Para 4) |
| 3. court's directive on possession rights (Para 5) |
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents and perused the entire material on record.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that this writ petition is filed by the petitioners questioning the action of the respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring Ac.5-00 guntas under Sy.No.101 (sub divided Sy.No.101/1/b) situated at Miyapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and preventing them from entering onto their own land.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that while admitting, this Court granted interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.9151 of 2012 in W.P.No.7248 of 2012 on
15.03.2012. In spite of lapse of more than 13½ years, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not choose to file any counter in this matter for denying the averments made in the writ affidavit and requested to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners, without following due process of law.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submit that the respondents will follow the procedure contemplated under law before interfering with the possession of the petitioners in the subject property and pass appropriate orders.
5. In view of the submissions made by both sides, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners in the subject property, without following due process of law.
There shall be no order as to costs.
