Disposed

Sheri Narsimha Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Telangana HC18 Feb 2025WP/28008/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against Endowments authorities' alleged interference with agricultural land claimed to belong to Kalika Devi Temple. Title dispute already pending in civil suit O.S.No.90/2020 where interim injunction was granted; court directed parties to agitate rights before trial court and disposed of the petition without costs.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sheri Narsimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 2… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

t^3300I

¶2

HrcH couRT FoR THE Srare or TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

, THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

wRlT PETITION NO: 28008 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Sheri Narsimha Reddy, S/o Srisailam Reddy Aged about 65^yrs, Qcc. Business, R/o H.No.2-73, Kandawada, R.R. Dist, Stgte of Telehgq2?.i,ora*

¶9

AND

¶10

The State^{of Telangana,rep. by its PrincipalSecretary, Endowments} Department, Secretariat^{building, Saifabad- Hyderabad.}

¶11

The Commissioner of Endowments,^{Tilak Road, Hyderabad}

¶12

The Asst. commissioner^{of Endowments, Tilak Road,Hyderabad.}

¶13

Sri Rakesh Tiwari S/o. Late Shiv Prasad Tiwar,^{Aged 53 years Occ Business,} H. No. 233^{497 Sultan Shahi, Hyderabad.}

¶14

(R4 is impleaded as per C.O dt, 06t7t2023 in l.A.No. ,rrOr|.lrrrONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of^{lndia prayilg that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filedtherewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more especially^{one in the} nature of writ of Mandamus declaring^{action.of the respondents nqq 2 and 3 in} interfering with the peaceful^possession and enjoyment^{of the petitioner in respect} of the agricultural lands in Survey No.24, admeasuring^{Ac.2.13 gts Survey No.25,} admeasuring Ac.1.05^gts, andⁱⁿ Survey^{No.26, admeasuring Ac.5.!.5 gts., in ail} admeasuring Ac.8.23^gts., situated at^{Kandikalvillage, BandldgudaMandal,} Hyderabad district as illegal, arbitrary^{andu nconstitutionaland to consequently} direct the respondent nos 2 and 3 not to^{interferewiththe petitioners property} admeasuring Acs.8.23^guntas in Survey No.24, 25^{and 26} at^{Kandikal village,} Bandlaguda Mandal.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

¶18

Petition under Section^{15'1 CPC prhyingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in^{support of the petition, the High courtmay be pleased to} permit the petitioner to file the^{present Additional Affidavit and takethe sameon} record along with the^{documentsfiledherewith}

¶19

lA NO: 2 AF 2020

¶20

Between:

¶21

Sri Rakesh Tiwari S/o^{LateShiv Prapad Tiwar,Aged 53 years Occ Business,} H. No. 233 497 Sultan^{Shahi, Hyderaba(.}

¶22

...PETITIONER/PROPOSED RESPONDENTS NO'4 AND

¶23

Sheri Narsimha^{Reddy.Sio Srisailam} lqddy lged .qbout^{65 yrs, Occ'} Business, R/o^{H No.2-73, Kandawada,R.R.Dist, State of Telengana'}

¶24

...RESPONDENT/WRIT^PETITIONER

¶25

2 The State of Telangana,^{rep. by its Principal Secretary, Endowments} Department, Secrelariat^{ouitOirig,Saifabad.Hyderabad}

¶26

J Th6 Commissroner of Endowments.^{Tilak Road, Hyderabad} 4 The Asst. Commissioner^{of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad,}

¶27

...RESPO}IDENTS/RESPONDENTS^{No.1TO 3}

¶28

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High Court maybe pleased tO} vacate the interim order^{dated31 .01 .2020 granted in the abovel.A. No. 1 of 2019} in WP. No. 28008^{of 2019.}

¶29

IANO:3O F 2020

¶30

Between:

¶31

1 The State of Telangana, rep.^{by its Principal Secretary, Endowments} Department, Secreiariat^{building. Saifabad,Hyderabad}

¶32

2 Th6 Commissioner of Endowments,^{Tilak Road, Hyderabad} 3 The Asst. commissioner^{of Endowments, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.} 4 Sri Rakesh Tiwari S/o.^{LateShiv Prasad Tiwar,Aged 53 years Occ Business,} H. No. 233 497 Sultan Shahi,^Hyderabad.

¶33

(R4 is impleaded as per C.O dt. 06n12023 in^{l.A.No. 112020.)}

...'ET'T.ONER

AND

:lj 'xiril-

Sheri Narsimha Reddy, S/o Srisailam Reddy Aged about 65^yrs, Occ Business, R/rc H.No.2-73, Kandawada, R.R. Dist, State of Telengana.

¶38

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶39

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dt.31lO1t2O2O pa"rud in l.A.No. 1/2019 in W.P.No. 28008 of 2019.

¶40

Counsgl for the Petitioner: SRI R.SUSHANTH REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: GP FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI AVINASH DESAI

¶41

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶42

ila .)4,

¶43

i..f#l

¶44

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶45

WRIT PETITION No.28OO8 of 2Ol9 ORDER:

¶46

Petitroner is aggrieved by the interference of respondent Nos.2 and 3 rvith his peaceful possession and enjovment of property 1n Survey No.24 admeasuring Ac.2.13 gts. Survey No.25 admeasuring Ac.1.05 gts., and in Survev No.26 admeasuring Ac.5.O5 gts (Ac.8.23 gts 1n total) situated at Kandikal village, Bandlaguda Mandal, Hyderabarl district.

¶47

f{eard learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Endowments. Perused the record.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit. He would essentially contend that the petitioner is the owner of the subject property b1. acquisition of the land under registered Sale Deed No.1861 of 1978 and that from 1954 55 onwards, the Revenue records show the flow of title. It is a-lso contended that the Revenue authoritieS have also granted Occupanc-y Rights Certificate on 16.10.2008 and therefore the interference of authorities is illegal.

,.f;

l,earned counsel for the respondents, based on the counter aflidavit f,rled by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, would essentially contend that the subject property belongs to Sri Kalika Devi Temple and therefore the Temple is the original owner, and the respondents are only supervisory authorities. It is contended that as the original owner is not made a partyrespondent, this writ petition is not maintainable. It is contended that the respondents have been conducting public auction for the past several years, and is evident from the challenge to the auction in a Public Interest Litigation, i.e., WP(PIL) No.41 of 2017 before this Court, however, the WP became infructuous as the auction was cancelled. The allegation that the respondent authorities have interfered when the petitioner was clearing the bushes and leveling the land is totally false. He further contends that the Telangana Endowments Tribunal at Hyderabad has jurisdiction to decide the dispute and the writ petition is not maintainable even on that count

¶53

It is to be noted that essentially the petitioner claims title

¶54

over. the subject property basing on a registered sale deed, and also^\Occupalcy Rights Certificate issued by the revenue authorities, and the legality of his claim is seriously disputed by

¶55

¶56

the respondent authorities of the Endowment.s Department on the ground that the subject lands belong to the Temple. It is to be noted that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.9O of 2O2O^on the file of the lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, u'ith respect to the subject^property. In the said Suit, he frled an application, I.A.No.434 of 2O2O, seeking temporary injunction against the respondents. The trial Court^passed order dated 15.06.2020 granting interim injunction in favour of the petitioner.

¶57

Having considered the respective sttbmissions, and perusing the record, admittedly, the subject property was the matter ol.dispute before the trial Court in O.S.No.9O of 2O2O filed by the pet itioner/ plaintiff. The dispute of title essentiaily being a question of fact that needs examination and determinzrtion over the course of trial, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the parties to approach the trial Court and agitate their rights

¶58

7 . Accordingl,v, the writ petition 1S disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶59

SD/.MOHD. IS L ASSISTANT REGIS R

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

'1 . The Principal Secretary, Endowments Department, Secretariat building' Saifabad. Hvderabad, State of Telangana.

¶64

2 The commi6sioner of Endowments^{Tilak Road' Hyderabad}

¶65

The Asst. commtssioneT^{of Endowments,TilakRoad, Hyderabad.}

¶66

+. One CC to SRI R.SUSHANTH^REDDY. {dvocate-[OPuC]-

¶67

";, ,/

¶68

Two CCs to GP FOR ENDOWMENTS, Htgh Court for tne State of terangana, at flyderabad. [OUT]

¶69

On-e CC to SRI AVINASH DESAI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶70

Two CD Copies PSK. BSK

HIGH COURT

DATE D : 1 810212025

I \

ORDER

WP.No.28008 of 2019

g
1 $e s-
(
e
t
o 0 i ltnn 2[25
*
t
a)
fsprit ctr gO

¶78

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶79

.q@
\o
Xr"

Sheri Narsimha Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sheri Narsimha Reddy v. The State of Telangana and 2 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rice Millers Association, Vs The State Telangana

M/s. Garg Steels Udyog India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Vs State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

Dr.K Satish Kumar Reddy Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Medical,Hyd,and 3

B. Narayana Vs the State of Telangana

Kavangal Triveni Akkireddy Vs The State of Telangana

G. Rakesh Vs the State of Telangana