Supreme Court of India· 16 September 2026
Is a writ petition claiming possession through another, for whom only the remedy of a fresh suit was reserved, maintainable?
STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS v. M.A. GARDEN FUNCTION HALL & ORS
2026 INSC 995
Coram: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra · Justice Shree Chandrashekhar
Answer
A writ petition claiming possession through another for whom only the remedy of a fresh suit was reserved is not maintainable.
No. A writ petition claiming possession through another for whom only the remedy of a fresh suit was reserved is not maintainable. Where an earlier writ appeal has already held that a writ court cannot record a finding of possession, and a Special Leave Petition against that order has been withdrawn reserving liberty only to institute a fresh suit, a second writ petition by persons claiming possession through the same party ought not to be entertained merely to secure interim protection that only the civil court could grant. (¶10, 11)
Headnote
Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 — Article 226 — Writ jurisdiction — Possession through another —
Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 — Article 226 — Writ jurisdiction —
Held: A writ petition claiming possession through another for whom only the remedy of a fresh suit was reserved is not maintainable, and a writ court cannot act in the teeth of an earlier Division Bench order this Court declined to disturb. Appeals allowed; the orders favouring the lessees set aside. (¶10, 11)
Headnote
You've used your free headnotes this month
The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.
Create my free accountIn the Court's own words
Paragraph 10Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that once the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Trust was disposed of as withdrawn without interfering with the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 07.09.2022 in Writ Appeal No.1243 of 2005 reserving liberty in favour of the Trust to avail the remedy of preferring a fresh suit, it was not open for the lessees to prefer a writ petition as the lessees are claiming possession through the Trust against whom the Division Bench of the High Court has already passed an order and the Special Leave Petition against the same has been withdrawn. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench could not have exercised the writ jurisdiction in the teeth of the earlier orders passed by the Division Bench and this Court. Once the High Court has already recorded a finding in Writ Appeal No.1243 of 2005 that it was not open for the writ court to record finding of possession, a second writ petition filed by the lessees only for protection of possession ought not to have been entertained. It is interesting and significant to notice that the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Trust was disposed of as withdrawn on 09.09.2025 without interfering with the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1243 of 2005 reserving liberty in favour of the Trust to avail remedy of preferring a fresh suit, the present round of writ petition was preferred by the lessees and not by the Trust, on or after 11.09.2025. It appears, 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 otherwise could have been considered only by the civil court considering the findings of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.1243 of 2005 which was not interfered by this Court.
Paragraph 11In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on 12.09.2025 in Writ Petition Nos.27715 and 27718 of 2025 and the impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench on 30.12.2025 in Writ Appeal Nos.1031 and 1032 of 2025 are set aside, without interfering with the State’s action of locking the premises.
Acts & Sections
Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS v. M.A. GARDEN FUNCTION HALL & ORS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →