Authority: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 16 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: The State of Telangana and others (appellants) vs. M.A. Garden Function Hall and others (respondents). The dispute centres on a 4,678 sq m land parcel in Gaganmahal Village, Hyderabad (T.S.No.19, Ward No.54, Block‑L).
  • The land was claimed by Kishan Chand Foundation Trust under a registered sale deed dated 1968.
  • On 26 June 1997 the Mandal Revenue Officer, Himayathnagar, issued a notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, demanding possession.
  • The Trust filed civil suit O.S.No.2364 of 1997; it was dismissed on 13 July 2001 for pecuniary jurisdiction. An appeal (A.S.No.387 of 2001) was dismissed on 29 August 2002 for non‑prosecution.
  • Subsequent proceedings under Section 6 of the 1905 Act directed the Trust to deliver possession.
  • The Trust filed Writ Petition No. 23001 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.No. 9726 of 2005; both were allowed on 26 April 2005. The Single Judge quashed the notice under Section 7 and the Section 6 order, making the rule nisi absolute and directing parties to bear their own costs.
  • The State appealed (Writ Appeal No. 1243 of 2005) before the Hyderabad High Court. The Division Bench, on 7 September 2022, set aside the Single Judge’s order, holding that a writ court cannot decide possession where serious factual disputes exist and noting that the Trust had filed a petition for restoration of A.S.No.387 of 2001, which was not disclosed to the lower court.
  • The Trust filed SLP (C) No. 16769 of 2022. An interim order on 26 September 2022 directed status‑quo; on 9 September 2025 the SLP was permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh suit, but no further interim protection was granted.
  • M.A. Garden Function Hall, represented by Mohammed Omer and two others, and Mohammed Wasiq Wahaj Uddin (claiming to be lessees of the Trust), filed W.P. Nos. 27715 and 27718 of 2025 before the High Court, challenging the State’s possession.
  • The Single Judge, on 12 September 2025, granted liberty to the Trust to institute a fresh suit within ten days, directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to unlock the premises, and ordered State authorities not to dispossess the petitioners.
  • The State appealed (Writ Appeals Nos. 1031 and 1032 of 2025). The High Court Division Bench, on 30 December 2025, dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Single Judge’s order.
  • A civil suit was filed on 16 September 2025, but no interim order was obtained within the ten‑day period.

Final Outcome

  • The Supreme Court set aside the Single Judge’s order dated 12 September 2025 and the Division Bench’s judgment dated 30 December 2025, without interfering with the State’s action of locking the premises.
  • The Court affirmed that the lessees could not file a writ petition because the High Court had already reserved liberty for the Trust to file a fresh suit, and the earlier Special Leave Petition had been withdrawn.
  • The pending civil suit will be decided on its own merits.
  • The appeals filed by the State are allowed.

Topics: Land Encroachment, Writ Jurisdiction