Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 14785
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Moushumi Bhattacharya, Gadi Praveen Kumar, JJ
Faheem Hussain – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL NO.470 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohammad Adnan
For the Respondents: Mahesh Raje
A person cannot claim a legal right to install equipment on a property if the title is disputed and they are not in lawful possession of the land.
Headnote:(A) Property Rights - Installation of CCTV - Disputed Title - Where the title of the property is disputed and the party is not in lawful possession, no legal right can be claimed for the installation of CCTV cameras on the said land. (Para 7, 9)
(B) Procedural Delay - Laches - Unexplained silence and substantial delay in filing a writ petition after the cause of action arises weighs against the merits of the petition. (Para 8)
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to the re-installation of CCTV cameras on a property where the title is disputed and lawful possession is not established.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and facts regarding the removal of cctv cameras. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. competing arguments regarding property title, police authority, and pending litigation. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of disputed title and the impact of delay (laches) on the petition. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. dismissal of appeal due to lack of lawful possession and disputed title. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The Writ Appeal arises out of an order dated 27.02.2026 passed in W.P.No.2772 of 2026, whereby a learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, filed by the appellant, on the ground that it was devoid of merits.
2. The brief facts relevant to the present dispute are that the writ petitioner claims to have installed CCTV Cameras on his property situated at Masab Tank, Saifabad, Hyderabad for protection from encroachment. The CCTV Cameras were removed by the respondent No.3/the Station House Officer, Masab Tank Police Station, Hyderabad in May, 2025. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition in January, 2026 for re-installation of the CCTV Cameras.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents.
4. The learned Government Pleader for Home reiterates that there is a complaint pending against the petitioner filed by one Ms. Sadat Begum alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery and criminal conspiracy in respect of fraudulent regularisation and registration of Government Ex-servicemen quarters, which forms the subject matter of the Writ Petition. The Government Pleader submits that notwithstanding the intent of the complainant in the outcome of the proceedings, the complainant has not been impleaded as a party to the Writ Petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ petitioner is a resident of Chicago, USA and hence requires monitoring and supervising the schedule property. Hence, the petitioner had installed CCTV Cameras in 2021 to ensure its safety of the subject property and protection from encroachment. Counsel also submits that the Police do not have any right to remove the CCTV Cameras installed in the subject property. Counsel further submits that the petitioner’s sister filed a Suit (O.S.No.126 of 2023) for recovery and eviction, which is pending before the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Counsel further submits that the Writ Petition was filed by way of an abundant caution.
6. After considering the issues on behalf of the parties, we do not find any merit in the Writ Appeal.
7. It is admitted that the title of the property which forms the subject matter of the Writ Petition is disputed. The dispute involves not only the claims of Ms. Sadat Begum, but also those of the petitioner’s sister, who significantly filed a Suit against the writ petitioner.
8. Moreover, we find that the petitioner remained silent for a substantial length of time after the CCTV Cameras were removed by the Police in May, 2025. The Writ Petition was filed in January, 2026.
9. Hence, until the title of the property is determined, the petitioner cannot claim any right to install CCTV Cameras over the land in question. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge also records that the investigation carried out by the Police authorities disclosed that the petitioner and the other accused persons were never in lawful possession of the said property and had misrepresented facts before the Revenue and Registration authorities to obtain illegal regularisation.
10. We do not find any error in the impugned order whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition.
11. W.A.No.470 of 2026, along with all connected applications, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
