HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr. K. Pradeep Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. L. Ravindar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home and Mr. Pendem Sai Ram Goud, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

2. Petitioner No.2 is the husband of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner and possessor of the lands admeasuring Acs.8.39½ guntas in Survey Nos.4/A1, 4/A2, 4/E1, 4/E/2, 7/E and 7/1, situated at Palakeedu Village and Mandal, Suryapet District. Respondent No.6 has filed a suit vide O.S. No.35 of 2023 (Old No.10 of 2023) pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet for specific performance of agreement of sale. The said suit is pending. There is no interim order. Petitioner No.1 has filed a suit vide O.S. No.353 of 2023 against respondent No.6 herein seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the major portion of the subject property i.e., Acs.1.18 guntas in Survey No.4/AA1, Acs.1.20 guntas in Survey No.4/AA-2, Acs.1.20 guntas in Survey Nos.4/E/2, Acs.2.20 guntas in Survey No.7/1 and Ac.0.35 guntas in Survey no.7/E and a single plot having dimensions with 30’ X 50’. The said suit is also pending. There are no interim orders.

3. During pendency of the said suits, on the request of respondent No.5 on 15.04.2025, respondent No.3 promulgated the proceedings under Section - 164 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’). Challenging the said proceedings, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

4. Respondent No.3 has issued notice dated 29.05.2025 fixing the inquiry on 21.06.2025. According to the petitioners, they have appeared before respondent No.3 and submitted counter stating about their title and also pendency of the aforesaid suits and they have also filed copy of latest pattadar passbook-cum-title deed. Without considering the same, respondent No.3 promulgated the proceedings under Section - 164 of the BNSS.

5. In the impugned order dated 27.06.2025, there is reference to six (06) crimes, names of complainants, accused and stage of crime etc., are specifically mentioned in the said impugned proceedings. Perusal of the same would reveal that on the complaint lodged by respondent No.6, respondent No.5 has registered four (04) crimes, on the complaint lodged by petitioner No.2, the very same police station has registered two (02)

more crimes.

6. In the counter filed by the petitioners before respondent No.3, they have specifically informed about pendency of the aforesaid two cases. Even then, there is no consideration of the said aspects.

7. As discussed above, O.S. No.35 of 2023 filed by respondent No.6 is for specific performance of agreement of sale. O.S. No.353 of 2023 is filed by petitioner No.1 against respondent No.6 for perpetual injunction. The said suits are pending. Respondent No.3 cannot decide prima facie title and possession of the parties under Section - 164 of BNSS. The same is impermissible. The said principle was also laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ashok Kumar Nigam, 1. (2013) 3 SCC 372, M. Siddiq (D) through L.Rs. v. Mahant Suresh Das, 2. (2020) 1 SCC 1 wherein the Apex Court categorically held that respondent No.3 on coming to know about pendency of the said suit, he cannot promulgate the proceedings under Section - 164 of the BNSS. The said principle was also followed by a Division Bench of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in B. Madan Mohan Reddy v. Sub-

Divisional Magistrate & Revenue Divisional Officer, Paloncha, Khammam, 3. (1998) 4 ALD 608 (DB)

8. As discussed supra, the petitioners have informed about pendency of the aforesaid suits to respondent No.3 by way of filing counter. Even then, there is no consideration of the same by respondent No.3. Therefore, the impugned proceedings, dated 27.06.2025 of respondent No.3 are contrary to the procedure laid down u