Battu Somaiah vs The State of Telangana - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16813

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16813

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J
Battu Somaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.24675 of 2025

Important Points

The court upheld the petitioner's right to possess property pending the investigation of a related criminal complaint.

Subject

Property Law - Writ Petition

Act Referred

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita: S.2023

Headnote

In this case, the petitioner claimed ownership of agricultural land based on title documents and sought to prevent dispossession. The court heard the arguments and directed that respondent No.3 must not interfere with the petitioner's possession while ordering an investigation into related criminal proceedings under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The ruling denied costs, leading to the closure of pending petitions.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: L.Ravinder

Table of Content
1. ownership claim and pending litigation. (Para 2)
2. allegation of interference by respondents. (Para 3)
3. directive to uphold possession and investigate. (Para 4)

ORAL ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.

L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. Petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land in Survey No.305/A, 306/A and 307/1 admeasuring Ac.0.13 guntas Ac.0.16 guntas, and Ac.0.20 guntas total admeasuring to Ac.1.09 guntas situated at Huzurnagar village and Mandal, Suryapet District. In proof of the same, he has filed latest pattadar pass book and title deed. He has filed O.S.No.166 of 2012 against Pasya Srinivas Reddy for perpetual injunction. Learned Junior Civil Judge, at Huzurnagar has granted interim injunction in favour of petitioner restraining respondent No.5 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the subject property. According to the petitioner, the said suit is pending and the said interim injunction is subsisting. Even then, at the instance of respondent Nos.5, respondent No.4 is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following due process of law. There is a specific contention at paragraph No.8 of the writ affidavit that at the behest of respondent No.5, respondent No.3 came to petitioner’s land on 13.08.2025 and made attempts to dispossess the petitioner. Challenging the said action of respondent No.3, present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue on instructions submits that neither respondent No.3 nor his subordinates interfered with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property as alleged in the writ affidavit. In paragraph No.7 of the writ affidavit there is mention of registration of Crime No.106 of 2025 on the complaint lodged by the petitioner against respondent No.5.

4. In light of the said submission, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.3 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject property and respondent No.4 is directed to conduct investigation in Crime No.106 of 2025 strictly in accordance with the procedure laid under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , 2023.

There shall be no order as to costs.