2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 11560
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
E.V. Venugopal, J
Sreepathi Srinivas – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.13696 of 2024
A writ petition is not the appropriate remedy for disputes concerning the title and possession of land, as such matters are civil in nature and must be adjudicated by a competent civil forum.
Headnote:The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus under Articles 14, 19, and 300A of the Constitution of India to prevent the respondents from dispossessing them from agricultural land in Sy.No.72/37 at Naspur village, alleging that the action was arbitrary and without due process of law. The petitioners claimed absolute ownership, while the respondents contended that the dispute was civil in nature and that revenue records did not support the petitioners' claims of adjacency to the land in question. The court examined whether the writ jurisdiction was appropriate for resolving the dispute. The court reasoned that since the conflict pertains to the question of title and possession between the parties, it is essentially a civil dispute that cannot be adjudicated through a writ petition, noting that the police authorities were not interfering in the civil dispute. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent no. 5 to 7 herein dispossessing the petitioners from their agriculture land in Sy.No.72/37/a/2 an extent of Ac.1.00 gts of the 1st petitioner land in Sy.No.72/37/a/3 an extent of Ac.1.00 gts of the 2nd petitioner and land in Sy.No.72/37/a/1 an extent of Ac.1.00 gts of the 3rd petitioner, total an extent of Ac.3.00 gts situated at Naspur village and Mandal, within in the limits of Naspur Municipality, Mancherial District without having any rights over the property and without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary and violations of Principles of Natural justice and also violation of article 14, 19, 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent no.5 to 7 not to dispossess the petitioners form their above mentioned agriculture land and pass…”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6, and Ms.P. Tejaswini Rathod, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7. Perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of agricultural land total admeasuring Acs.3.00 gts., in Sy.No.72/37, situated at Naspur Village and Mandal, within the limits of Naspur Municipality, Mancherial District. He would further submit that in the year 2013, respondent No.7-company has made a request to respondent No.5 for land acquisition in Sy.No.72 to an extent of Acs.99.15 gts, for R & R purpose. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.5 issued proceedings dated 29.11.2013 and directed Mandal Revenue Inspector to resume the land into the government custody for public purpose and the same was thereafter acquired. He would further submit that the land allotted to respondent No.7-company for the purpose of R & R, is nearby the petitioners’ agricultural land and that respondent No.7 is interfering with the petitioners’ possession and trying to dispossess the petitioners from their agricultural land, without issuing any notice or following the due process of law, which is illegal and contrary to settled principles of law. Stating so, he would seek to pass appropriate orders.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, by furnishing written instructions of Sub-Inspector of Police, CCC Naspur Police Station, Ramagundam Commissionerate, would submit that firstly respondent No.6 is in no way concerned with any civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.7, and has neither interfered with nor tried to dispossess the petitioners from their agirucultural land. He would further submit that petitioner No.2 had earlier filed a petition to respondent No.6 regarding the officials trespassing into their land, which, upon enquiry, was closed as ‘civil in nature’. In that regard, petitioner No.2 has also filed W.P.No.13849 of 2024 before this Court and this Court, vide order dated 05.06.2024 has also disposed of the said writ petition. He would further contend that respondent No.6 never interfered into the possession of the petitioners or into the civil disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.7. Stating so, he would seek to dismiss the writ petition.
Ms. Tejaswini Rathod, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7, by furnishing the written instructions, would submit that a joint inspection was conducted with respect to the land claimed by the petitioners, wherein, it was found that after a lapse of 20 years, the petitioners came and claiming the said land. But, in field, the revenue authorites do not reflect the petitoners’ land as being adjacent to Sy.No.72/37.
In view of the above submissions and taking the written instructions dated 06.06.2024 of Sub-Inspector of Police, CCC Naspur Police Station, Ramagundam Comm