THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.28145 of 2025

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. With their consent this writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. Notice to respondent No.5 is hereby dispensed with.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking following prayer:-

“…declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 to 5 in interfering with the possession of the petitioner in land admeasuring Ac.3-24 gts., in Sy.No.44 at Gandiguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (subject property) as violative of Article 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondent Nos.1 to 5 not to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of the petitioner over the land of the petitioner in Ac.3-24 Gts., in Sy.No.44/2A, 44/2AA, 42/E at Gandiguda Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District…”

3. Brief facts of the case as stated are that petitioner claims to be absolute owner and possessor of subject land having inherited the same from his father who acquired the same vide registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.3075/1978. It is submitted that when the petitioner intended to sell the subject land and on verification of Dharani portal, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that in the said portal, it was reflecting in the remarks column that a Court case is pending against the subject property. Accordingly, petitioner approached Tahsildar and on enquiry, he came to know that one Mr.S.Nanda Kishore is claiming to be owner of subject property having purchased under registered sale deed bearing Doc.No.1620/1977. Accordingly, petitioner approached SRO, Hyderabad and obtained a certified copy of registered said sale deed. On perusal of the said sale deed, it is established that the said document pertains to an agreement of running an oil shop between two persons viz., P.Hanumath Rao and Naroze Ali in resect of 13-4-434, Sabzi Mandi, Hyderabad. In that regard, petitioner made a representation dated 27.01.2024 to the District Collector, since no action is forthcoming, petitioner filed W.P.No.5397 of 2024 before this Court and this Court by dated 29.02.2024 disposed of the said writ petition by directing the Tahsildar to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 27.01.2024. Despite the orders of this Court, the Tahsildar did not consider the representation of the petitioner.

3.1. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that one Ms.S.Uma W/o.S.Nanda Kishore was claiming ownership of the subject land basing on the mutation proceedings obtained by her husband. Petitioner filed another writ petition in W.P.No.23579 of 2024 against the said S.Uma. Contrarily, the said S.Uma filed another writ petition in W.P.No.23354 of 2024 challenging the patta passbooks issued in favour of the petitioner. During the course of enquiry, the Tahsildar obtained information from Sub- Registrar, Hyderabad and it is revealed that said Doc.No.1620/1977 pertains to an agreement for running of an Oil Shop (petitioner’s business) and that the petitioner submits that the said S.Nanda Kishore manipulated the documents to usurp the property from the petitioner. Subsequently, due to constant interference from respondent No.6, petitioner filed O.S.No.377/2025 on the file of XI Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar from interfering with his possession over the subject land. The trial Court granted an exparte interim injunction restraining respondent No.6 and their henchmen from interfering with the petitioner’s possession on 11.09.2025. The main grievance of the petitioner is that despite the favourable orders of XI Addl.District Judge, Ranga Reddy District dated 11.09.2025 in O.S.No.377/2025 granted in favour of petitioner, respondent No.6/Company who had no right title over the petitioner’s land, along with official respondents started interfering in the petitioner’s property. Questioni