The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside orders passed by the Telangana High Court that had restrained the State authorities from dispossessing the occupants of M.A. Garden Function Hall, holding that the lessees could not invoke writ jurisdiction to seek protection of possession when the Trust through which they claimed possession had already pursued the matter before the courts.
A Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekar allowed the appeals filed by the State of Telangana and others and set aside the High Court orders dated September 12, 2025 and December 30, 2025.
The dispute concerns land measuring 4,678 square metres situated at T.S. No. 19, Ward No. 54, Block-L, Gaganmahal Village, Hyderabad.
The 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 1997, the Mandal Revenue Officer issued a notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, calling upon the Trust to show cause why it should not be evicted from the land.
The Trust subsequently challenged the eviction proceedings before the High Court. Although a Single Judge had initially quashed the Section 7 notice and Section 6 order, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed that decision in September 2022.
The Division Bench had specifically held that where there were serious disputes regarding possession and title, a writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could not determine such disputed questions. It also noted that the Trust had remedies available under the Land Encroachment Act.
The Trust challenged the Division Bench judgment before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court initially directed the parties to maintain status quo over the property.
However, on September 9, 2025, the Trust was permitted to withdraw its Special Leave Petition with liberty to institute a fresh suit. Importantly, the Supreme Court did not grant any further interim protection to the Trust while permitting the withdrawal.
Thereafter, M.A. Garden Function Hall, represented by Mohammed Omer and others, along with another occupant claiming to be a lessee of the Trust, approached the Telangana High Court through fresh writ petitions challenging the State authorities' action of taking possession of the premises.
The High Court's Single Judge directed that the Trust be given ten days to institute a fresh suit and, in the meantime, directed the State authorities not to dispossess the writ petitioners. The officer was also directed to unlock the M.A. Garden Function Hall.
The State challenged this order before the Division Bench, which dismissed the appeals and affirmed the Single Judge's directions.
The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court could not have entertained the fresh writ petitions filed by the lessees.
The Bench observed that the lessees were claiming possession through the Trust, against which the Division Bench had already passed an order in 2022. The Trust's subsequent SLP had been withdrawn without interfering with that judgment.
The Court held that once the Trust had been granted liberty to pursue a fresh civil suit, the lessees could not institute a fresh writ petition seeking protection of possession in circumstances where the earlier judicial findings continued to operate.
The Court also noted that the earlier Division Bench had already held that a writ court was not the appropriate forum to record findings regarding possession in the face of serious factual disputes.
The Supreme Court took note of the fact that the Trust's SLP was withdrawn on September 9, 2025, while the fresh writ petitions by the lessees were filed on or after September 11, 2025.
The Court observed that the fresh petitions appeared to have been filed by the lessees because the Trust itself could not have pursued a writ petition in view of the earlier orders. The Court stated that the interim relief sought by the lessees was otherwise a matter to be considered by the civil court.
The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the Telangana High Court's orders dated September 12, 2025 and December 30, 2025, while expressly stating that it was not interfering with the State's action of locking the premises.
The Court noted that a civil suit had already been instituted and was pending before the Trial Court. It directed that the suit should be decided on its own merits.
The appeals filed by the State of Telangana were consequently allowed.
Case: State of Telangana & Ors. v. M.A. Garden Function Hall & Ors. Etc.
Citation: 2026 INSC 995
Civil Appeals: 12895–12896 of 2026
Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekar
Date: September 16, 2026.
Representation:-
For Petitioner(s):- Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Devina Sehgal, Adv. Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv.
For Respondent(s):- Mr. S. Niranjan Reddy, Sr. Adv. Mr. D. Abhinav Rao, AOR Ms. Megha Shaw, Adv. Mr. Aniket Singh, Adv. Mr. Abhisek Das, Adv.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy