Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned government land in Gaganmahal Village, Hyderabad, which the M/s. Kishan Chand Foundation Trust claimed under a 1968 registered sale deed, but which the State treated as encroached government land. In 1997, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued a notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, requiring the Trust to show cause against eviction from 4678 square meters of land. The Trust's civil suit was dismissed in 2001 for want of pecuniary jurisdiction, and its first appeal was dismissed in 2002 for non-prosecution. Proceedings under Section 6 of the 1905 Act were then initiated. The Trust filed a writ petition in 2004, which a Single Judge allowed in 2005, quashing the Section 7 notice and Section 6 order. On appeal by the State, a Division Bench of the High Court set aside that order on 07.09.2022, holding that a writ court cannot decide disputed questions of possession or title. The Trust challenged that order before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 16769 of 2022, but withdrew it on 09.09.2025 with liberty to file a fresh suit. No interim protection was granted to the Trust. Immediately thereafter, M.A. Garden Function Hall and others, claiming as lessees of the Trust, filed fresh writ petitions seeking protection from dispossession and unlocking of the premises. A Single Judge, by order dated 12.09.2025, directed that the Trust file a fresh suit within ten days and until then the lessees should not be dispossessed; the Mandal Revenue Officer was also directed to unlock the function hall. The State's writ appeals against that order were dismissed by a Division Bench on 30.12.2025. The State then approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that once the Trust's SLP was withdrawn without disturbing the Division Bench's 2022 order, and liberty was granted to file a fresh suit, the lessees claiming through the Trust could not maintain a second writ petition for protection of possession. The Court noted that although a civil suit was filed on 16.09.2025, no interim order was obtained within the ten-day period. It reasoned that the lessees' writ petitions were an attempt to secure from the writ court what should have been sought from the civil court, especially since the writ court could not adjudicate disputed possession. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside both the Single Judge's order dated 12.09.2025 and the Division Bench's judgment dated 30.12.2025, without interfering with the State's action of locking the premises. It directed that the pending civil suit be decided on its own merits.
Headnote
A) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Article 226 - Possession and Title Disputes - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - A writ court is not a forum for declaration of possession or title when serious factual disputes exist; the earlier Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1243 of 2005 had so held and that order was not disturbed by the Supreme Court when the Trust's SLP was withdrawn; therefore, the learned Single Judge and Division Bench could not have exercised writ jurisdiction for protecting possession of lessees who claim through the Trust. Held that the High Court's exercise of writ jurisdiction in the teeth of the earlier Division Bench order and the Supreme Court's disposal of the SLP as withdrawn was impermissible (Paras 4, 10). B) Abuse of Process - Fresh Writ Petitions by Lessees - Avoidance of Civil Court Remedy - Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, Sections 6 and 7 - After the Trust withdrew its SLP on 09.09.2025 with liberty to institute a fresh suit, the lessees, not the Trust, immediately filed fresh writ petitions on or after 11.09.2025 to secure an interim order for possession protection and unlocking; this appeared to be a device to obtain from the writ court what should have been sought from the civil court, especially since the Trust had not obtained any interim order in the pending suit. Held that such writ petitions by lessees claiming through the Trust ought not to have been entertained (Paras 10-11). C) Alternative Remedy - Appeal and Revision under Land Encroachment Act - Civil Suit Pending - Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, Section 6 - The Act provides a remedy of appeal against an order passed under Section 6 and further remedy of revision; the Trust's original suit and first appeal had been dismissed, and the Supreme Court while permitting withdrawal of the SLP reserved liberty to file a fresh suit; a civil suit was filed on 16.09.2025 and was pending. Held that the High Court's orders directing unlocking and status quo were set aside without interfering with the State's action of locking the premises, and the pending civil suit shall be decided on its own merits (Paras 3-4, 9, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in entertaining writ petitions filed by lessees claiming through the Trust for protection of possession and unlocking of premises, when the Trust's special leave petition had been withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit, and the earlier Division Bench had held that writ court cannot decide possession disputes.
Final Decision
The appeals were allowed. The common order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.09.2025 in W.P. Nos. 27715 and 27718 of 2025 and the common judgment of the Division Bench dated 30.12.2025 in W.A. Nos. 1031 and 1032 of 2025 were set aside, without interfering with the State's action of locking the premises. The civil suit already filed by the Trust was to be decided on its own merits by the trial court.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked for declaration of possession or title when serious factual disputes exist
- once a party's special leave petition is withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit
- persons claiming through that party cannot maintain a fresh writ petition for protection of possession
- writ court cannot unlock premises or direct status quo in such circumstances
- remedies of appeal and revision under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act
- 1905 must be availed
- pending civil suit must be decided on own merits
