The Supreme Court has held that lessees claiming possession through a landowner could not maintain a fresh writ petition seeking protection of possession when an earlier High Court ruling against the landowner remained undisturbed after withdrawal of its Special Leave Petition. A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar set aside orders of the Telangana High Court that had protected the lessees from dispossession and directed the authorities to unlock the premises of M.A. Garden Function Hall.
The Court said that the High Court could not exercise its writ jurisdiction in disregard of the earlier orders passed by its Division Bench and the Supreme Court, particularly when the dispute concerning possession and title was required to be pursued before the civil court.
Background
The dispute concerns 4,678 square metres of land situated in T.S. No.19, Ward No.54, Block-L of Gaganmahal Village, Hyderabad. M/s Kishan Chand Foundation Trust claimed ownership of the property on the basis of a registered sale deed executed in its favour in 1968.
In June 1997, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Himayathnagar, issued a notice to the Trust under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, asking why it should not be evicted from the land.
The Trust instituted a civil suit in 1997, which was dismissed in July 2001 on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. Its subsequent appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution in August 2002. The authorities thereafter initiated proceedings under Section 6 of the 1905 Act directing the Trust to deliver possession.
The Trust challenged the proceedings before the High Court. In April 2005, a Single Judge allowed its writ petition and quashed the notices issued under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act.
Earlier Division Bench Ruling Against Trust
The State challenged that decision. On September 7, 2022, a Division Bench allowed the State’s writ appeal and set aside the Single Judge’s order.
The Division Bench found that serious disputes existed regarding possession, with the State asserting that the property was government land. It held that such questions could not be determined in writ proceedings.
The Supreme Court judgment reproduced the Division Bench’s observation:
“A writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a forum for declaration of possession or title of a person, that too, when there are serious factual disputes.”
The Trust approached the Supreme Court against the 2022 judgment. On September 26, 2022, the Court directed the parties to maintain status quo. However, on September 9, 2025, the Trust was permitted to withdraw its SLP with liberty to institute a fresh suit. The Supreme Court noted that no further interim protection was granted to the Trust while allowing the withdrawal.
Lessees Approach High Court
Soon thereafter, M.A. Garden Function Hall, represented by Mohammed Omer and two others, along with Mohammed Wasiq Wahaj Uddin, claiming to be lessees of the Trust, filed two writ petitions challenging the State authorities’ action of taking possession of the premises.
On September 12, 2025, a Single Judge gave the Trust ten days to institute a fresh civil suit pursuant to the liberty granted by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the authorities were restrained from dispossessing the writ petitioners. The Mandal Revenue Officer was also directed to unlock M.A. Garden Function Hall.
The Single Judge permitted the Trust to approach the civil court for appropriate interim relief within ten days, failing which the State authorities could proceed in accordance with law.
The State challenged this order, but a Division Bench dismissed its writ appeals on December 30, 2025 and affirmed the Single Judge’s directions.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Before the Supreme Court, it was stated that although a civil suit had been instituted on September 16, 2025, the Trial Court did not grant any interim order within the stipulated ten-day period. The Court therefore noted that the liberty granted by the Single Judge had not been effectively availed of within that period.
The Bench held that once the Trust’s SLP had been withdrawn without disturbing the September 7, 2022 Division Bench judgment, while reserving liberty to institute a fresh civil suit, the lessees could not initiate another round of writ proceedings to protect possession derived through the Trust.
“The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench could not have exercised the writ jurisdiction in the teeth of the earlier orders passed by the Division Bench and this Court.”
The Supreme Court further held:
“Once the High Court has already recorded a finding in Writ Appeal No.1243 of 2005 that it was not open for the writ court to record finding of possession, a second writ petition filed by the lessees only for protection of possession ought not to have been entertained.”
The Bench noted that the fresh writ petitions were filed by the lessees shortly after the Trust withdrew its SLP. According to the Court, it appeared that since the Trust itself could not have filed another writ petition, the lessees approached the High Court to obtain interim relief that, in light of the earlier Division Bench findings, could otherwise have been considered only by the civil court.
Decision
Allowing the State’s appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the Single Judge’s September 12, 2025 order as well as the Division Bench’s December 30, 2025 judgment.
The Court specifically declined to interfere with the State’s action of locking the premises. It recorded that the civil suit was already pending before the Trial Court and clarified that the suit would be decided on its own merits.
Case Title: The State of Telangana and Others v. M.A. Garden Function Hall and Others Etc.
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 12895-12896 of 2026
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Date: September 16, 2026
