Disposed

Mr.Mohammed Sultan Mohiuddin v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC11 Jun 2025WP/5711/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court disposed of a plea by the petitioner challenging the respondents' action of interfering with his agricultural land. The court directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner without following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Direction not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following due process of law.

Mr.Mohammed Sultan Mohiuddin Vs The State of Telangana — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰²¹

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original^{Jurisdiction)}

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE^{ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFI\IE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH}

¶6

WRIT PETTTIO^{N NO:s711 0F 2017}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Mr.MohammedSultanMohiuddin,s/o.Mr.Mohd.GhouseMohiuddinAged ;il;ib'o G"E, o"t^{iir.in".ilnvoir t{o.e-s-az, osmanpura, Karimnagar-TS}

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of^{Telangana,Rep by its PrincipatSecretary' Revenue} Department, Secretariat,^{at Hyderabad} .

¶12

Z. ifiS fjbirictCottector,^{kirimn6gar District At Bommakal Village, Karimnagar} S. fiie R"Grre^{Divisional Officer, Bommakal Village, Karimnagar}

¶13

The Tahsihar,^{Bommakal Village Karimnagar}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article^{226 of lhe constitutionof lMiaprayingthat in the} cii.cumstances^{Stated in the affidavitfiledtherewith,the HighCourt may be} pleasedtoissueaWrit.orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof writ of Mandamus^{declarrng the actionof the Respondentsmo{eparticularlythe} RespondentNo.4withoutfollowinganydueprocessoflawandwithoutissuing any Notice,^{interferinginto} Petrtioners Agricultural^Land in Sy.No.7412, admeasuring^{Ac.0-20guntas'} situated at Bommakal^Village' Karimnagar,^by actingaboveruleoflawaSarbitrary,ex-facieillegal,highharrded,discriminatory' above rule of^{law and in violatron of Article 14 and21 0f the constitutionof lndia} and consequently^{may direct the Respondents more particularlythe Respondent} No.4 not to interfere^{into Petitioners Agricultural Land in Sy No'74/2' admeasuring} Ac.0-20^{guntas, situatedat Bommakal Village, Karimnagar including rrct to} dispossess^{Petitioner from the aforesaid landwithout following any dueprocess} of law,ⁱⁿ the^{interest of} iustice

¶16

I I I I I I i i i :

¶17

I j i l I

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP. No : 6964 OF 20171

¶19

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 direct the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No.4 not to interfere into Petitioner's Agricultural Land in Sy.No.7412, admeasuring Ac,O-20 guntas, situated at Bommakal Village, Karimnagar including not to dispossess petilioner from the aforesaid land without following any due process of law, in the interest of justice pending disposal of the main Writ petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. NAZIR AHMED KHAN

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: AGp FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE K.SARATH} WRIT PEf,ITION No.5711 of^2OL7

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

Heard learned counsel for^{the petitioner and learned} Assistant Government^{Pleader for Revenueappearing for} tJre respondents and^{perusedthe entire material on record'} 2. lrarned Counsel for the^{petitioner submits that ttris} writ petition is hled^{declaring the action of the Respondent} No.4 interfering^{intoPetitfoner's agriculturalland} admeasuring to arr^{extent of Ac'0-20 guntas in Sy'No'74/2} situated at Bommakal^{Village, Karimnagar,without} following due^{process of law as illegal and arbitrary'}

¶26

L,earned Counsel^{for the petitionerfurther submits} that while admitting,^{this Court passed interim orders on} L7.O2.2OL7 directing^{the respondentsnot to dispossess the} petitioner from the subject^{properfywithout followingdue} process. In spite of lapse^{of more than 8 years, the} respondents did not^{choose to hle any counteror vacate} petition in this matter^{for denying the avermentsmade in} the writ aflidavit^{and requested this Court to directthe}

SK. J v/.P_s?lI_20t?

/ (

respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from^the subject property without following due^process of^law

¶32

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the respondents will follow the procedure contemplated under law before interfering with the possession of the petitioner in the subject property and pass appropriate orders.

¶33

In view of the submissions made by both sides, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitiondr from the subject property, without following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if

¶35

any, shall stand closed.

¶36

//TRUE^COPY//

¶37

SD/. A.^JAYASREE Assl TANT REGISTRAR 'l SECTION^OFFICER

¶38

To, The Principal^{Secretary' RevenueDepartment' Secibtariat' T S''at}

¶39

2.3 Iill"i'::'":',:"Ji"?ie-l;5,#sfl^{'d"T"J:"li,?i"Uil'J'Yll335;Karimnasar} 4. 5. 6. H:H3":'bi"W.{j}sfl':ff^{S1s:tssus'rreansanaa'i} Hvderabad [OUTI 7. Two CD^CoPies BM .QJP

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1110612025

ORDER

.o.)'.
0 3 tlEP 2025
,.9
*
l).

¶45

WP.No.S711 of 2017

¶46

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶47

,,C

Mr.Mohammed Sultan Mohiuddin v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Mohammed Sultan Mohiuddin v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sherla Naresh Balaji, Vs The State of Telangana

N.V.R. Murthy Vs The State of Telangana

N. Bharathi Vs The State of Telangana

Mogulla Krishna Murthy, S/o. Late. Mogulla Venkata Narsaiah, Vs State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Syed Sadaq S/o.Syed Ahmed Vs State of Telangana Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue

Katanguri Vishnuvardhan Reddy Vs The State of Telangana