Telangana High Court
Nawab Mohammad Fakruddin Khan Shaikh ... vs The State Of Telangana on 14 March, 2023
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
Writ Petition No.37873 of 2022
in
C.S.No.7 of 1958
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Mr.S.A.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.D.Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General representing respondent Nos.1 to 6.
2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for the following relief:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioners herein pray that this Court may be pleased to pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in obstructing the petitioners from entering into their land in Sy.No.83 to an extent of Ac.64.48 cents (D4 and D6) situated at Raidurg Village, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District by interfering with the 2 peaceful possession of the owner and enjoyment of the petitioners in and over the said land as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents not to disturb the peaceful ownership and enjoyment of the petitioners on the land in Sy.No.83 to an extent of Ac.64.48 cents (D4 and D6) out of 532 acres situated at Raidurg Vilage, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and pass such other order or orders as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, we find that the land mentioned by the petitioners in the prayer portion is part of the suit schedule property in C.S.No.7 of 1958 which is still awaiting final closure before this Court.
4. As on today, rights of the petitioners over the said land has not yet crystallized. When the rights of the petitioners have not crystallized, question of seeking enforcement of any such right is premature.
35. Therefore, we are of the view that the writ petition at this stage is premature. However, we grant liberty to the petitioners to avail their remedy after the closure of C.S.No.7 of 1958, if they still remain aggrieved.
6. With the above observation, writ petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J 14.03.2023 MRM