##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.44150 OF 2017

DATE : 29.01.2026

Between:

Gurudwara Saheb Barambala Sikh

Chauniyat, Maharaja Ranjeet Singh Nagar, Attapur Village, Ranga

Reddy District. Hyderabad, 500064,

Rep.by its President, Sri S.Sukhdev Singh

…Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana and Others

…Respondents

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus or

otherwise declaring the action of the Official Respondents

especially the 7th and 8th Respondents herein in interfering with the

peaceful possession of the Petitioner in Sy.No.354/1 to 4

admeasuring 6040 sq.yards situated at Attapur Village,

Rajendranagar Mandai, Ranga Reddy District as bad, illegal,

opposed to principles of natural justice and consequently declare

the same as non est and direct the Officials Respondents to finalize

and complete the issue of allotment within a period of 3 months

from the date of receipt of this order and be pleased to pass........”

2. Heard Mr. T.S.Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Ms.B.N.Shailaja, learned Assistant Government Pleader

for Endowments Department and learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Revenue.

2

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondents

Nos. 7 and 8 are unlawfully interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property bearing

Survey Nos. 354/1 to 354/4, admeasuring Ac. 6040 square yards,

situated at Attapur Village, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy

District. It is further contended that despite the petitioner having

submitted a detailed representation seeking redressal, the

respondent authorities have failed to conclude the proceedings

initiated thereon, thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this

Court seeking appropriate directions.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleaders appearing for the

Endowments Department and the Revenue Department, on the other

hand, submit that the allegation levelled against respondents Nos. 7

and 8, namely that they are interfering with the petitioner’s

possession without any lawful authority, is wholly unfounded and

unsupported by material evidence. It is further contended that the

documents placed on record do not substantiate the petitioner’s claim

of interference. He also submit that the petitioner’s representation

has already been taken note of by the competent authority, internal

correspondence has been initiated, and the same is under active

consideration, pursuant to which appropriate orders will be passed in

accordance with law.

3

5. I have perused the pleadings and the material placed on

record.

6. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that respondents

Nos. 7 and 8, without any tenable or lawful justification, are

interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the subject property.

The categorical stand of the respondents, however, is that there was

no occasion for them to interfere with the petitioner’s possession.

7. Having regard to these rival submissions, it is well settled that

even State authorities and public officials are bound by the rule of law

and cannot interfere with a person’s settled possession except by

following due process of law. Interference with possession otherwise

than in accordance with law would be violative of Constitutional

rights, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of his

property save by authority of law. Further, administrative authorities

are required to act within the four corners of their statutory powers

and cannot resort to extra-legal measures, particularly when

proceedings are admittedly pending consideration.

8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, and keeping in mind

the role, responsibility, and limitations of the official respondents

while conducting statutory proceedings, respondents Nos. 7 and 8

are directed to refrain from interfering with the peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the petitioner over the peti