Dismissed

Sri Mohammed Hussain v. Mr. T. Sai Baba

Telangana HC6 Jan 2026CC/247/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to prevent forcible dispossession of their claimed house site by Panchayat authorities without acquisition proceedings, along with a contempt case alleging breach of interim orders. Finding disputed title facts unfit for Article 226 adjudication, the Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to approach the civil court and closed the contempt case.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Mohammed Hussain Vs Mr. T. Sai Baba — Contempt of Court | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

|^321s l

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITION No: 13291 of 2023 AND

¶8

CONTEMPT CASE No. 247 of 2024

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 13291OF 2023

¶10

Between:

¶11

Sri l\rlohammed Hussain, S/o Late Khaja Hussain, Aged about 75 years, Occ. NiI,

¶12

Smt. Ahmedi Begum (Died as per LRs PP5 to 8), W/o Mohammed Hussain Aged about 68 years, Occ. Housewife

¶13

Mohammed lliyas Hussain (Died as per LRs PP5 to 8), S/o lt/ohammed

¶14

. Hussain Aged about 45 years, Occ. Business,

¶15

Mohammed Aijaz Hussarn, S/o f/ohammed Hussain Aged about 41^yearc, Occ. Business,

¶16

(All Residents of H.No. 2-3-451127, Gaidanbagh area, Nallaguta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad)

¶17

Mohammed lmtiyaz Hussain, S/o lVlohammed Hussain Aged about 42^yearc, Occ Business,

¶18

I\rlohammed Amjad Hussain, S/o Mohammed Hussain, Aged about 41^years, Occ Business,

¶19

(Residents of H.No. 2-3-451127, Gaidanbagh area, Nallaguta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad)

¶20

Smt. Hajera Begum, W/o. Akbaruddin Ahmed D/o. Mohammed Hussain, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. 1 3-6-431/E/'102, t\iloghal Nagar, Pillar No.92, Attapur, Hyderabad

¶21

B. Smt. Salma Begum, Wo. fVohammed Hussain Ahmed D/o. Mohammed Hussain, Aged about 38 years, Occ Housewife, Rl/o. H.No.^{1-8-11511114,} Kareem Compound, Nallagutta, Secunderabad.

¶22

P5 to 8 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased Petitioner nos.2 and 3 as per C.O.dt.21.1 1.2025 in lA No.212O25.

¶23

...PETITIONERS

¶24

AND

¶25

1 The State of Telangana, Rep by its Chief Secretary, Panchayat^Raj Secretariat at Hyderabad.

¶26

The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Departrr:rt, Government of Telangana, Secretariat at Hyderabad.

¶27

The District Panchayat Officer, tr4edak District, It4edak.

¶28

The Sarpanch, Grampanchayat, Kagazmaddur Villai l, Narsapur l,4andal, Medak District, Telangana.

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lnrl r praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled therewith, the. lligh Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of lvlandamus or any other appr( priate Writ, order or direction

¶31

(a) By declaring the action of the Respondent no.3 and I i1 trying to take the forcible possession of the above lands bearing G.^r Door No. 1-2311, admeasuring 1200 Sq.yds, equivalent to 1003.2 Sq.mts sirr ated at Gramkantanr of Kagazmaddur Village, Narsapur lrlandal t\iledak District f^.om the Petitioners without resorting to land acquisition proceedings, as illegal rnd u n constitution al. (b) To direct the Respondent No.3 and 4 not to evicl and dispossess the petitioners from their respective lands in G.P Door No. 1-2Il admeasuring 1 200 Sq.yds, equivalent to 1003.2 Sq.mts situated at Gramkarrr lm of Kagazmaddur Village, Narsapur Mandal Medak District, without followinc :he due process of law.

¶32

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶33

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the i-cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Co I t may be pleased to direct the respondent No.3 and 4 not to evict and disposse; the petitioners from their respective lands in G.P. Door No. 1-23l1 , admeasu ng 1200 Sq. Yards equivalent to 1003.2 Sq. l\rleters, Situated at Gramkan i nr of Kagazmaddur Village, Narsapur Mandal, t/edak District, without followir< the due process of law, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶34

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶35

Between:

¶36

The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Departnt, nt, Government of Telangana, Secretariat at Hyderabad.

¶37

The District Panchayat Officer, Medak District, lvledak

¶38

...PETITIONERS

¶39

AND

¶40

1 Srr lr,4ohammed Hussain, S/o Late Khaja Hussain, Aged about 75 years, Occ. Nit,

¶41

2 Sml Ahmedi Begum (Died_ as per LRs pp5 to g). W/o Mohammed Hussain Aged about 68 years, Occ. Houiewrfe

¶42

3 [/ohammed l.liyas Hussarn (Died 1s per LRs pp5 to 8), Sio t\r.lohammed Hussain Aged about 45 years, Occ. Buiinesi,^{-' ' -}

¶43

4 lrlohammed Aijaz Hussain, S/o l,4ohammed Hussain Aged about 41 years, Occ. Business

¶44

(AIl Residents of H.No. .2-3-451t27, Gaidanbagh area, Naltaguta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad)

¶45

5 Mohammed lmtivaz Hussain, S/o Mohammed Hussain Aged about 42 years, Occ Business

¶46

6 fi/ohammed Amiad Hussain, S/o Mohammed Hussajn, Aged about 4l years, Occ Business

¶47

(Residents of H.No. 2-3-451127, Gaidanbagh area, Nallaguta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad)

¶48

7 Smt. Hajera Begqn, W/o. Akbaruddin Ahmed D/o. Mohammed Hussain, Aoed g.boy! 3-Q Vears, Occ. Housewife, RIo. f a-+llrc.itoZ, lrt"ghrt'i,'r";;;l pi# No.92, Attapur, Hyderabad

¶49

8 Smt. Salma Begum, W/o. Mohammed Hussain Ahmed D/o. Mohammed Hussain,^Aged about 38 years, Occ Housewife, R:/o_ H No. 1-B-11511/14, Kareem Compound, Nallagutta, Secunderabad.

¶50

The State of Telanoana. Rep by its Chief Secretary, panchayat Raj Secretariat at Hyderabid.

¶51

10.The !q1pa1ch Grampanchayat, Kagazmaddur Viilage, Narsapur Mandat, Medak District. Telangana.

¶52

...RESPONDENTS

¶53

Petition under Section 15'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated.11-os-2023 in lA.No.1 of 2023 in W.p.No.13291 of 2023, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶54

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI WASIM AHMED KHAN

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR GENERAL ADMN.

¶56

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: Gp FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ

¶57

Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI K.PRADEEP REDDY,

¶58

SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶59

CONTEMPT CASE NO: 247 OF 2024

¶60

Petition under Sections 10 lo 12 of Contempt of Cour s Act^'1 971 to^punish the Respondents herein for committing Contempt of lourt^{orders dated} 11-05-2023 in l.A.No.'l of 2023 in W.P.No.13291 of 2023.

¶61

Between:

¶62

Sri Mohammed Hussain, Sio Late Khaja Hussain, Age: about 75^years,Occ. Nit

¶63

Smt. Ahmedi Begum, Wo lt4ohammed Hussain Agec r:out 68^years, Occ. Housewife

¶64

lVlohammed lliyas Hussain, S/o [,4ohammed Hussain / lled about^{45 years,} Occ. Busrness,

¶65

Mohammed Aijaz Hussain, S/o ltrlohammed Hussain r^pted about 41^years, Occ. Business,

¶66

(All Residents of H.No. 2-3 -45'1127, Gaidanbag r area, Nallaguta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad)

¶67

Mohammed lmtiyaz Hussain, Sio Mohammed Hussair \ged about 42 years, Occ Business,

¶68

Mohammed Amjad Hussain, S/o [t4ohammed Hussain \ged about 41 years, Occ Business,

¶69

(Residents of H.No. 2-3-451127, Gaidanbag r area, Nallaguta, Ramgopalpet, Secunderabad)

¶70

Smt. Hajera Begum, W/o. Akbaruddin Ahmed D/o. [Vlol-: rrmed Hussain, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Housewife, No. 13-6-431lE|1O2 , l/oghal Nagar, Pillar No.92, Attapur, Hyderabad

¶71

Smt. Salma Begum, W/o. lVohammed Hussain Ah r ed D/o. Mohammed Hussain, Aged about 38 years, Occ Housewife, R/o H.No. 1-8-1 1511114, Kareem Compound, Nallagutta, Secunderabad.

¶72

P5 to I are brought on record as LRs of the decea ;ed Petitioner nos.2 and 3 as per C.O.dt.21.11.2025in lA No.1/2025 in C(:. '1o.247124.

¶73

...PETITIONERS

¶74

AND

¶75

1 Mr. T. Sai Baba, The District Panchayat Officer, Ir4;dak District, [/edak Telanagana State.

¶76

1. Mr. S. Kumar, The Sarpanch, Grampanchayat,^;( r,3azmaddur Village, Narsapur Mandal, Medak District, Telangana State.

¶77

..,CONTEMNORS

¶78

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI WASIM AHMED KHAN

¶79

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ t l.lRAL DEV

¶80

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶81

/"'

¶82

IN THD I{IGH COLIRT'}'OII lHE STATE OI,'TEI,ANGANA AT HYDIIRAtsAD

¶83

.I'HE, HONOTIRAI}I,E SM'f. .II-TS]'ICE'I" MADIIAVI I)F],VI

¶84

wRI't' PU't'I'l'toN NO.r329r OF 2023

¶85

ANT)

¶86

CONI'EMI'T CASE N0.247 OF 2021

DATED :& .01.29,a

W.P.No.l329l ol 2023

Bctwecn

Sri Mohanrrncd I Iussain and others

¶91

Petitionels

¶92

ANT)

¶93

l'he State of^'l'elangana rep. by its Chiel

¶94

Secrctary, Secretariat, I lyderabad and othcrs

¶95

Respondents

¶96

ORDER

¶97

This Writ Petition is filed seekiug a Writ of Mandamus,

¶98

(a) by declaring the action of respondents No.3 and 4 in trying to

¶99

take thc forcible possession of the subject lands bearing G.P

¶100

Door No. I -2311 , admeasuring 1200 square yards equivalent to

¶101

l i ii I n t I ! i I i

¶102

W.Plr ll2q L of 20ll &C( lr,.24l of2024

¶103

¶104

1003.2 square rnetres situated at "(^j lrml:antaur" ofKagazmaddur Village, NarsrpLrr Mandal, N{,' lrk T)istricr lionr thc petitioners rvithout resotting t() lirrd l((lLrisition proccedings, as illegal and unconst itu tional,

¶105

(b)to direct respondents 3 and 4 not to cvict ir( dispossess the petitioncrs lrom their respective lands in G.l' )oor No.I-23ll admcasuring 1200 square yards eqrri,alent 1003.2 squa l'e metres situated at "Grarnkantam" cll Kagl ;^'rraclclur V illagc, Narsapnr Mandal, Medak Distrlcl, without I ,llorving the clue process ol law, and

¶106

¶107

Brief tacts leading to the filing ol W.P.No. ll29l o1'2023 arc that the petitioners ciaim to be the owncrs and posscssors l lkruse bearing G.P.No. 1-23ll admeasuring 1200 square yards equi r,lent to 1003.2 square metres situated at Gramkantam of Kagrr.t taddLLr Village, Narsapur Mandal, Medak District. Petitioner No. I i lain-rs to havc inherited the same from his grandmother by name !l^-rt. Itoshan Bee, W/o Mohammed Hussain and claims to be residing in le said propcrty lor several years and after the death of his grandmother ire succeeded to

¶108

W.P.No. ll29 I of 2023 & C.C.No.247 o12024

I I I

! I f i I

I , .. I

the property and was in enjoymcnt and in pl'rysicai possession of^the same. lt is stated that peLitioncr No. ['s grandmothct''s and^{grandf'ather's} names also appeared in thc Ciraur l)auchayat Tax ltccords and^petitiorter No.l also has paid the properly tax amountir.tg to Rs.984/- tbr tl.re^ycar 2014-2015 vrrle Receipt N,r.002 dt. 13.0-1.20 l5 and lirrther that^the ownership ce(iflcate beariug No.GP.M/18/1.0 l3 dt. 10.03.2013^{was also} issued by rcspondent No.4. lt is subntitted that tlre said house became dilapidated and it is bounded North by: House of^Mohammed Raheemuddin, South by: llouse ol'liakhruddin, East by: Road^{and West} by: Open placc ofothers. It is submitted that in the^{year 201 7, petitioncr} No. 1 claims to have executcd .i registercd gift deeds on^10.05.2017 bearing Documcnts No.2470 to 2472 iu lirvour of^{pe titioncrs 2 to 4 who} are the wile and two sous of petitiouer No.I^gifting 300 square^{yards to} each ol them and re[ained 300 square^yards lor hirrrself^{and pctitioners 2} to 4 wcre in possession of the same and u,hile the rratters^stoodthus, respondents 3 and 4 have approachcd the petitioncrs and inforrned^them that they want to constluct a school on the said land and that though^the petitioners have questioned about- the same and apploached respondents 4 and 5 along with all registered documents in thcir favour, respondents

¶114

t 3 and 4 instead of considering the saure, have threatcned the^pctitionels i

¶115

¶116

W.t'.i.1 ..119 I of 2021 & Cl.(l^.,ir.247 of2024

¶117

¶118

to vacate thc said land and the Soorel-ary ol the :oncetnecl^(iram Panchayat also enquired about the long possession^,r['Ire petitioncls in respect of thc said lands and upon being intonred by rc local rillaccrs about their ownerstrip and possession, directed I t pctltrollcrs to construct Kadi/boundaries surounding the said lanil; l nd accordingly, the petitioners flxed the boundaries, but respondcnts I Lnd^.1 canrc to thc spot and again threatened the petitioners to vac.t' the said land 'fherefore, the petitioners got issued legal notice dt.30 r ().2022 nor 10 act in illegal and highhanded manner and to follow due ;,r rceclurc o1-larv if the land was required for any public purpose, but no^- pl;, rvas^qivcn to thc lcgal notice, but the District Panchayat Officer, Mt -1ak [)istrict. r:irfu Men.ro No.1094120221A2-PTS dt.26.09.2022, issucJ to thc N,lanclal Pancyhayat Officer, MPP Narsapur, dirccting him t,r i:ncluire into the mattcr and submit an enquiry report. It is submitted tl- tr thc merro w?ts also rnarked to the petitioners. Thereafter, the per i ioners har,e not received any report or any communication from respcr dent No.4 office. On 05.05.2023, respondent No.4, along with Secretir y and MPO and others, visited the petitioners' land and tried to dispos:;r ss them and with great difficulty, their actions were stopped and challe r g,in-u their illegal

¶119

¶120

W.P.No. I 129 t oi2(l2l & C.C. No.247 of 2024

¶121

¶122

.ri-

¶123

action in trying to crect irolt polcs surroullding the land^{of the pe titioner-s} rs illegal and arhitrary, W.P.No. ll19 I ol'2023^{has bccn flled}

¶124

-1. l'his Court, virlr' ordcrs dt.l 1.05.1023,^{haclr-irantcdinterirrr} directiorr as prayed lcrr, r.e., uo1 to^{disl-rt'rssessthe pctitiollersllotn tlre} sut{ect land

¶125

Ihcreafter, the respondertts^{havee rcctcd poles irr thc larrd lrldptrt} rrp a gatc with rramc boald as^{"['clangarta PIal' (irotrrrtl' in Iclugu irr} spitc ol- the objections and^protost lroltt^{thc pcrtitioncrsandtlrcrefbrc.} alteging wilful disobediertce in cotnpliaucc^{rvith thc directions of this} (lourt, Contempt Case in C.C.No.247 of 202'1 is Illed

¶126

Both the Conternpt Case as^s'c[[ as^{the Writ Pctitiorl u'erepostccl} together by the orders ol^the FIon'blc^{(lhiel Justice ancl theyu cre hearcl} and are being disposed olby this^{comrnonand consolidatcd ordcr}

¶127

Respondent No.3 has filed^{a couutcraffidavit in W.P.Nol329l ol'} 2023 dcnying the allegations^urade try^{thc petitiortcrs and lufthcr} submitted that as per the enquiry^{and inspectionconductedrvith regald} to the subject property, it^came to^{lightthat IIouseNo- l-23l1 is not at all} registered in the natne of^{petitioner No.1 anywhele in ltevisionl{egister} \ \

¶128

li l

¶129

wt, <sup>,. lll9 i of 202-l &(' ' ro l.1l ol'202.1

¶130

¶131

or in the D('l] Recistcrs and that the averments^.tat thc nanr!' olIrctit^ir)ncrNo.I fhthcl was ulso mentioned in the. R,. rsion [lc:qistcr. IS n()L eorl.cct. Ir is lurthcI subtuittcd that no hotrse ,rl i reqistcre(l \itlt lloLrse No. l-lli I . lr is furrhcr subrnitted that ou r _,r.shi1-r certitlcute dt. I L).03 201:l rr as obruined in a fr-audulent rrrnnL,r i, itl thc hc.lp ot' rl.rnipLrlatcd urrcl f'ablicated documents. lt is Iirrlhcr:;rr ,rnitred that u,herr thr' cnqLliry uas conrlucted by the Divisional Panclt rrt ()llrccr. thcrc \ lls n() house ol' thc petitioncrs amongst the viltagc - It rvas r.r-\ crlcd that thcrc is no liousc of the petitioners since 50 to (rl^., L'Ars lls clainrccl by thcm ancl thcrc ,'as no construction activities in rl , subject lenti lnd orlr o1.rcn placc is existing and the boundaries of the. , riginrrl plrcc ancl tl.re'd.curnent.l'the petitioners are different. Therefbr: respondc-nt ..-i praved to vacirtc the interim order dt. I 1.05.2023 and l( lisnr iss the Writ l)ctition. A copy of the enquiry repoft and also cr ries of Revision I{esister lor I 99 1-92 and Tax Records are all fl lt., along w.irh rhc counter zrllida v it.

¶132

l.earned^(iovemment Pleader lor panchal.r t Rai ancl Rural I)evclopnrent lirrther placed lcliance upon the decisio of Singlc Judge ol this Court in thc casc of Samrudhi Jeeva pranl rana Mantliram

¶133

W.l'.No.li29lofl0li & C.(.No.247 oi2024

¶134

;.: I

¶135

¶136

(Christian Chrritable Trust) rcp. hy its Author of the'l'rust-cunr(lhairnran Vs.^-l'he State of Telangana rcp. bf its I'r'incipal Secrctar,v, Panchayat Raj and Ilural Derclol)ment I)cpartnrent antl o th c rsl, wherein it was observcd that nonc ol thc authoritics undcr thc l'clangana Panchayat Ra.i Act is ctnporvercd to issuc owtterslti;r ccrtificatc and therelbre, tlte ownership ccrtilrcate procured by thc petitioncr ll'om uuauthorised petsons cartnot bc cotrsidered. lt was observcd that lhe practicc ol- giving ownersltip ceftificates by Parrchaylt Sccretaries/S arpanches is prevalent in the State, bLrt such certiflcatcs camrot be rclied upon and that it should bc lrornc in ntind that that^the cntrics in the Panchayat records, Municipal records and^{('orporatiorr} rccords are only tbr the limited puqrose ol'collection of taxcs arrd thc entrics in the Municipal records do not, b1' tltcntseli,es, cortlcr altl absolute titlc or orvnership rights

¶137

tt. The petitioners have not chosen to file arry leply allidavit rcbutting the enquiry reporl

¶138

'Ihough leamed counsel for the pctitiortcrs has placed strong reliance upon the averments made in the writ aflidavit^{and the}

¶139

'^{w.p.No. tq8(, t of2020dt.l1.t1.2020}

¶140

W.l..ll L-'l29lof20 .2.1 &^{( (.10.217 (){} 20 :lI

¶141

¶142

ri)

¶143

docunicnts li led along with the same, however, on ! c [n€\ through the rcport ol'thc Lri'llcels, it is noriced that thele is no i-r ) I je \/ith ll.No. l- 2l'l lnrl thcsc I'ircts iiltich urc allcged by the pc-t I oncrs cAlnot he consicie red uncl r criIied by this^(fourt in this Writ Peli i,.ln Lurler Article 2l(r o1'thc^{('trnstilution} ol lr-rdia. Tlrc petitioners q,t.r l,,l [hcrctirr.c hlrr.c to rpproach tlt.- civil^('or-rrt filr establishrnent of th: r right, titlc lnd possession or cr t[.rc sLrbic'ct land

¶144

I^(). In vie ir ()I thc sanle, the Writ Petition is dismir': :d u,ith libertv tcr the pctitioncr-s ro approach the (livil ()ourt, if they s(' rhoosc. No ortlcr as to costs.

¶145

I l. 'l lte ('onlcutJrt Case is also closcd. No order as I cosls

¶146