Lessees Cannot Use Fresh Writ Petition to Secure Possession After Trust's SLP Withdrawn, Supreme Court Holds

A Division Bench holds that lessees claiming through a trust cannot revive writ jurisdiction to protect possession once the trust's own special leave petition was withdrawn without relief.

The Supreme Court has set aside High Court orders that protected the lessees of M.A. Garden Function Hall from eviction by State authorities in Hyderabad. A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar held that once the trust which leased the property had its Special Leave Petition withdrawn without any interference in the Division Bench's earlier adverse order, the lessees could not circumvent that outcome by filing fresh writ petitions in their own names. The Court found that entertaining such petitions amounted to an impermissible exercise of writ jurisdiction against settled findings on possession and title, and directed that the dispute be resolved only through the pending civil suit.

A Dispute Stretching Back to 1997

The dispute originates from a notice dated 26 June 1997 issued to M/s. Kishan Chand Foundation Trust under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Himayathnagar, called upon the Trust to show cause why it should not be evicted from land admeasuring 4,678 square metres in T.S. No. 19, Ward No. 54, Block-L of Gaganmahal Village, Hyderabad. The Trust asserted ownership through a registered Sale Deed executed in its favour in 1968.

The Trust responded by filing a civil suit, O.S. No. 2364 of 1997, before the Sixth Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. That suit was dismissed on 13 July 2001 for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. An appeal, A.S. No. 387 of 2001, before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, was dismissed on 29 August 2002 for non-prosecution. Meanwhile, proceedings under Section 6 of the 1905 Act were issued directing the Trust to deliver possession.

The Trust then filed Writ Petition No. 23001 of 2004 before the High Court. The learned Single Judge allowed it on 26 April 2005, quashing both the Section 7 notice and the Section 6 order. The State challenged that order through Writ Appeal No. 1243 of 2005.

Division Bench Reverses the Single Judge in 2022

The Division Bench of the High Court at Hyderabad allowed the State's writ appeal on 7 September 2022 and set aside the Single Judge's order. Its reasoning was pointed. The Bench found that “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.” It also noted that the Trust had filed a petition for restoration of A.S. No. 387 of 2001 after the dismissal of the suit but had not informed the writ court of this fact. The Division Bench additionally observed that the 1905 Act itself provides for a remedy of appeal against orders passed under Section 6, and a further remedy of revision before the revisional authority — avenues the Trust had not exhausted.

The Trust then approached this Court by filing SLP (C) No. 16769 of 2022. An interim status quo order was granted on 26 September 2022, protecting the Trust's possession pending the SLP. That protection held until 9 September 2025, when the Trust chose to withdraw the SLP. This Court permitted the withdrawal while granting liberty to the Trust to file a fresh civil suit. Critically, no further interim protection was granted at the time of withdrawal.

The Lessees Step In

Within days of the SLP's withdrawal, M.A. Garden Function Hall — represented by Mohammed Omer and two others — and one Mohammed Wasiq Wahaj Uddin, both claiming to be lessees of the Trust, filed W.P. Nos. 27715 and 27718 of 2025 before the High Court. They challenged the State authorities' action of taking possession of the subject premises.

The Single Judge disposed of these writ petitions on 12 September 2025 by granting liberty to the Trust to file a fresh suit within ten days. In the interim, the State authorities were directed not to dispossess the writ petitioners. The Mandal Revenue Officer was also directed to unlock M.A. Garden Function Hall. If no interim order was obtained from the civil court within ten days, the State was left free to act in accordance with law.

The State appealed through Writ Appeal Nos. 1031 and 1032 of 2025. The Division Bench dismissed those appeals on 30 December 2025, affirming the Single Judge's order. The State then came to the Supreme Court.

The Court's Reasoning: No Indirect Route Around a Settled Order

The Supreme Court found the sequence of events telling. The Trust's SLP had been disposed of as withdrawn on 9 September 2025 without disturbing the Division Bench's 2022 judgment in Writ Appeal No. 1243 of 2005. That judgment had recorded a clear finding that a writ court could not determine possession in such circumstances. The very next day, the lessees filed their writ petitions seeking precisely what the Trust could no longer obtain.

The Court held that the lessees, claiming possession through the Trust, stood in no better position than the Trust itself. Since the Trust's own petition had ended without any relief, the lessees' writ petitions — filed only to secure an interim order protecting possession — ought not to have been entertained. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench had exercised writ jurisdiction contrary to the earlier Division Bench order and this Court's own disposition of the SLP.

The Court observed that “since the Trust could not have filed a writ petition, the lessees came forward for preferring a fresh set of writ petition only to secure an interim order” which could properly be considered only by the civil court. This, the Court found, was an impermissible collateral route to revive relief that had already been declined through the established judicial process.

The Court also noted a practical fact on record: although the Trust filed a fresh civil suit on 16 September 2025 — within the period allowed by the Single Judge — no interim order had been granted by the Trial Court within the stipulated ten days. The liberty granted by the Single Judge had therefore not been effectively availed of within time.

Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal Nos. 12895–12896 of 2026, arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 3016–3017 of 2026. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 12 September 2025 in W.P. Nos. 27715 and 27718 of 2025 and the Division Bench judgment dated 30 December 2025 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1031 and 1032 of 2025 were set aside. The Court expressly declined to interfere with the State's action of locking the premises. The civil suit already filed by the Trust before the Trial Court was directed to be decided on its own merits.