Disposed

Thakurr Shekwar Ram Kumar v. Suhash Deshpande

Telangana HC6 Aug 2025CRP/1612/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Execution petition for possession under a land grabbing decree was challenged on the ground that the agricultural land had been converted into plots. The High Court held the dispute concerned identification of properties and permitted the petitioners to seek appointment of an Advocate Commissioner with a Surveyor before the executing court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to apply before the executing court for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner with Surveyor; CRP disposed of and matter remanded to trial court; no costs.

Thakurr Shekwar Ram Kumar Vs Suhash Deshpande — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE $TATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERAFAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH IDAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JqSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION O: 1612 OF 2025

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order made in E.P.01 of 2025 of 2025 in LGOP.No.02l2000 dated 03-04-2025 on the file of Principal District Judge, Adilaba$

¶8

Between:

¶9

Thakurr Shekwar Ram Kumar, S/o Harsil'tgh, age 40^years, R/o H.No. 3-2376, Tatiguda, Adilabad (Died) Per Lrs 24lo 16

¶10

Sudesh, Wo.Late Thakur Shekwat Ram Kumar, Age. 52^years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No.3-2-376,Tatiguda,fdilabad.

¶11

Dileep, S/o.LateThakur Shekwat Ram Kumar, Age. 44^years, Occ.^Business, R/o. H.No. 3-2-376, Tatiguda, Adilabad. l

¶12

Gopal, S/o.Late Thakur Shekwat RamKlmar, Age. 39^years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 3-2-376, Tatiguda, Adilabad.

¶13

...Petitipner/Judgment debtors No.24 to 26

¶14

AND

¶15

Suhash Deshpande, S/o.Kishan Rao, Agp. Major, Occ.^{Not Known,'} R/o. Brahmanwada, Ashok road,Adilabadl^{AtPresentresidingatF-78,ACW} Colony L and T Cement Works, Avarpur,^{iChandrapur District.}

¶16

(Died per LR R.25)

¶17

Vilas Deshpande, S/o.KishanRao,^Age. Major,^{Occ. Not Known,} R/o.Brahmanwada, Ashokroad, Adilabadht^{Present Residing at H.No. 4-8-} 472, Gowliguda, Rammandir, Hyderabadl.

¶18

,^{... RespondenUJudgment holders}

¶19

Ahmed, S/o. Ameenuddin Age. 34years,0cc.Business,^{R/o. Tatiguda,} Adilabad.

¶20

Limbayya, S/o. Not Known, Age.64years; Occ.Not Known^{R/o. H.No.3-5-104,} Tatiguda, Adilabad.

¶21

¶22

Mariyam^{Bee, VV/o.Late Abdul Aziz, Age. Major,Occ.Housewife R/o.3-4-13,} Tatiguda, Adilabad.

¶23

Smt. Kamarurnisa Begum, Wo.Shaklal, Age. Major, Occ. Not known R/o.Opp Masjid Hilal, Ta:iguda, Adilabad.

¶24

7 Sm! Reshma, \V/o. Mujahid Age.Major, Occ. Not Known R/o. Tatiguda, Adilabad.

¶25

B. Mujeebuddin, S/o.Aminuddin Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o.H.No 3-5-55, Tatiguda, Adilahad.

¶26

Ruksana Begunt, S/o.S.KFareed Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o. Tatiguda, Adilabad.

¶27

10 Smt Hasten Banu, Wo.AbdulRasheed Age. Major, Occ Not Known R/o.Near Hilal Majid, Tatiryuda, Adilabad.

¶28

'l 1 Smt Arifa Bee, r/i//o.ShaikJamal Age. Mapr, Occ. Not Known R/o.Near Hilal Majid, Tatiguda, Adilabad.

¶29

12.Smt.Arifa Begurr, Wo.Shaik Moula Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o.Near Hilal Majid, Tatigruda, Adilabad.

¶30

Smt. Nazeera B,=e, Wo.SK.Hgssain Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o.Baid Hotel Servent, Tatiguda, Adilbbad.

¶31

Smt Raziyan Begum, Wo.ShaikHusan Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o.Opp.Basid l-lotel Servent, Tatiguda, Adilabad.

¶32

.15. Muduthkor Savilha, Wo. Shivnath Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o. Tatiguda, Adilabad.

¶33

Borkar Kalpana, Wo. Ganesh Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o. Tat iguda, Adilabad

¶34

17,Hameed Begum, Wo. Shaik Sattar Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o Tatiguda, Adilabad.

¶35

18.Smt. Mumtaz Begum, Wo. Moinuddin Khan Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o Tatiguda, Adilabad.

¶36

1 9. Smt. Haneefa.Begum, Wo. Abdul Raheem Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o Kranthinagar, Nerar Dr. Javed Dispensary, Adilabad.

¶37

Smt. Shameem llultana, Wo. SK. Madhar Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o. Tatiguda, Adilabrrd.

¶38

21.Shanker, S/o. Lirnbayya,Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o Tatiguda, Adilabad 22.Ashanna, S/o. Linbayya Age. Major, Occ. Not Known R/o. Tatiguda, Adilabad.

¶39

Smt. S. Sindhu E,ai, Wo. Kishan Rao Age. 59 years, Occ Household R/o. H.No. 6-8-57, Bhoktapur, Adilabad.

¶40

R Gajanan, S/o. Late Vasudev Age. 37 years, Occ. Employee R/o. H.No.^'l-2- 186, Shantinagar, Adilabad.

¶41

Sunanda Deshpande @ B. Sunanda, Wp. Late Kishan Rao, R/o. Gowliguda, Rammandir, Hyderabad. (R25 is impleadbd as per Court Order. dated.27 .6.2025 vide lA No.212024 in CRP No.'161 212025)

¶42

i ...Respondents/Judgment debtors

¶43

(Respondent No.3 to 24 not necessary partiQs in CRP)

¶44

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶45

Petition under Section^'151 CPC prayi4g that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,,the High Court may be pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedingd in an order dated 03.0{.2025 in E.P.No.01 ot 2025 in LGOP. No.02 of 2000 orir the file of Principal District Judge, Adilabad, pending disposal of the above revisiDn petition in the interest of justice.

¶46

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SOMA RAVI KIRAN REDDY

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI VIJAY,B.PAROPKARI

¶48

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶49

THE ITONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA crvl L REVISION PE-TITI ON No.1612 of2o25

¶50

ORDER:

¶51

This Civil Revision petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to se: aside the order dated 03.04.2025 passed in E.p. No.1 of 2O25 in L.G.O.p.No.2 of 2000 by the learned principal District J udg,', Adilabad.

¶52

The brief facts of the case are that the said Execution Petition was f iled by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under Order XXI Rule 35 of O.P.C. for delivery of possession of the E.p. schedule proF erty. The petitioners filed a counter stating that in Sy.No.41, r\dilabad town, no agricultural land is available, as the entire llnd has been converted into plots. They claimed that plot Nos.13 and 14 pertain to them, and therefore, it is not possible tl execute the decree when no agricultural land exists. They lurther contended that once agricultural land is converted into plots, its status as agricultural land ceases, and accordingly rerluested dismissal of the E.p. After trearing both sides, the tri r1 Court a,llowed the E.p., holding that the petitioners hacl not produced any documents to show that no agricultural land exists in Sy.No.4l of Adilabad or that the

¶53

SKS,J CRP.No.l612 of2025

¶54

¶55

land had been converted into plots.^{Aggrieved thereby,the} petitioners hled the present Civil Rpvision Petition

¶56

Heard Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri Vijay B. Pqropkari, Iearned^{counsel for} respondent No. 2.

¶57

Learned counsei for the pe[itioners submitted that^the impugned order is illegal and that respondents Nos.l^and2 had earlier frled LGOP No.02 of 2000 seeking a^{declaration of} ownership and to declare ,1.^{petitioners andother} respondents as land grabbers of agricultural land in^Sy.No.41, admeasuring Ac. 1- 18 guntas sitr.lated at Adilabad^Mandal, Adilabad District, and that^judgment was^{passed on} 09.11.2005. He further submitted,that^{respondentsNos. I and} 2 subsequently frled E.P.No.S4 ,of 2022^{beforethe same} executing court, which was dismissed on^{12.lO.2O24on tJre} ground that the land had been, converted into^{plots and} houses had been , constructed, rtendering^{demarcation ald} execution untenable.

¶58

SKS,J CR P.No.l6l2 of 2025

¶59

¶60

l,earne,l counsel for the petitioners contended^that although thi s Court remanded the matter^{to Lhe executing} Court for r€ consideration, the^{respondents filed the same} application v,ith no substantial changes^{except for the date,} and the exe<:uting Court allowed it without^{consideringthe} objections ra sed by the^petitioners and^{furthercontended that} both the LGOP^judgment and the earlier^{execution orderhad} clearly obserred that the land was no^{longer agriculturaland} had been converted into plots, and thus the^{present order} allowing exer:ution is contrary to law and facts on^record. Therefore, pr ayed the Court to allow the civil^{rer ision petition} by setting aside the order dated O3.O4.2025.

¶61

On the other hand, learned counsel for^{respondentNo. 2} hled counter denying the petition averments bl stating^that the^judgment- and decree in LGOP^{No.2 of 2O0Ohad attained} hnality, as no appeal was filed and the related writ^petition was dismisse d on 24.7O.2024 and that E.P.No. 1 of 2025,^was rightly filed and t the executing Court^acte<l within^its jurisdiction, rdhering strictly to legal procedure. He further submitted that the attempt of the petitioners to^reopen adjudicated issues through the CRP is barred by^{res judicata}

¶62

SKS,J CRP.No.l6l2 of2025

¶63

¶64

and prayed the Court to dismis$ the present Civil Revision Petition.

¶65

Upon considering the subrFissions made by both the learned counsel and the materidl available on record, it is noted that the original land grabhing petition was filed by the respondents claiming ownership oif Sy.No.41 and alleging that plol owners in Sy.No.4O had encioached into Sy.No.41. The L.G. Court allowed the petition, dBclaring the respondents as the owners of Ac.1-18 guntas in Sy.No.41 and directed removal of encroachers therein. Based on this, the present tr.P. was hled. Now, the petitiongrs claim ownership of plot Nos. 13 and 14 in Sy.No.4l under the guise of the land grabbing order. They contend that their plots are being targeted for removal, wtich was hot considered by the E.P. Court. The dispute essentially per[ains to the identihcation of properties in Sy.Nos.4O and 41, a$ such, ttris Court is of the considered view that the petitionefs can hle a petition before the Executing Coult seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner with the help of Surveyor to conduct a survey in Sy.No.4l, which will bring finality to the dispute. Therefore,

¶66

SKS.J CkP.No.1612 of 2025

¶67

¶68

liberty grantt:d to the petitioner to hle appropriare appiication before the tri al Court.

¶69

With the above observation, this Civil RevLsion Petition is disposed c f, and the matter is remanded to ttie trial Court

¶70

for further proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs

¶71

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶72

shall stand closed.

¶73

//TRUE COPY//

¶74

SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL
p EPUTY REGISTRAR
(\ I
<br>SECTION OFFICER

¶75

To,

¶76

1 The Principal District Judge, Adilabad 2 One CC to Sri {ioma Ravi Kiran Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] J One CC to Sri Vilay B.Paropkari, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies

NVB.igh

)

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610812025

'i 'F- i-. j. , \' c),
) ,-)
:a) 2 5 AU8 2025
).,
* \DJ..:--..,.'-'
-+-..--.r-... -,:-':r'

¶83

ORDER

¶84

CRP.No.1612 of 2025

¶85

DISPOSING TTIE CIVIL REVISION PETITION

¶86

t
b
<br>q-<br>

Thakurr Shekwar Ram Kumar v. Suhash Deshpande

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thakurr Shekwar Ram Kumar v. Suhash Deshpande

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Somala Venkatesh Vs The state of Telangana

Bakki Mallesh Kumar Vs Smt.M.Sandhya Rani

Katepalli Samrat Vs The State of Telangana

Mettu Mahendar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Jyothi Swaroop Gattani Vs Sri Talakokkulwar Lachanna

Voruganti Jyothi Reddy Vs The State of Telangana