Lessees Cannot File Writ to Protect Possession After Trust's SLP Withdrawn: Supreme Court in State of Telangana v. M.A. Garden Function Hall [2026 INSC 995]

In The State of Telangana & Ors. v. M.A. Garden Function Hall & Ors. Etc. (2026 INSC 995), the Supreme Court held that once the Kishan Chand Foundation Trust's SLP against the Division Bench judgment of 07.09.2022 was withdrawn with liberty only to file a fresh suit, its lessees could not invoke writ jurisdiction to protect their possession, and the High Court could not exercise writ jurisdiction "in the teeth of" those earlier orders (para 10). A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar set aside the Single Judge's order dated 12.09.2025 and the Division Bench judgment dated 30.12.2025 (para 11).

Status: Telangana High Court's orders dated 12.09.2025 (W.P. Nos. 27715 and 27718 of 2025) and 30.12.2025 (Writ Appeal Nos. 1031 and 1032 of 2025) set aside; State's action of locking the premises left undisturbed; civil suit to be decided on merits; appeals allowed (paras 11–13).

Headnote: Lessees' Writ Petition After Trust's SLP Withdrawn

Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction – Disputed possession and title – Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 – Sections 6 and 7 – Eviction from Government land – Lessees claiming through Trust – Earlier writ appeal decided against Trust – SLP withdrawn with liberty to file suit – Fresh writ petition by lessees – Abuse of writ jurisdiction – Civil suit.

Held: (i) The Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 1243 of 2005 had held that a writ court under Article 226 is not a forum for declaring possession or title where there are serious factual disputes (paras 4, 10).

(ii) When the Trust's SLP against that judgment was withdrawn on 09.09.2025 with liberty only to file a fresh suit, and without any further interim protection, the earlier findings remained undisturbed (paras 5, 10).

(iii) The lessees, claiming possession through the Trust, could not file a writ petition, and the Single Judge and the Division Bench could not exercise writ jurisdiction in the teeth of the earlier orders of the Division Bench and the Supreme Court (para 10).

(iv) The fresh writ petitions appeared to be a device to secure an interim order which could otherwise be considered only by the civil court (para 10).

(v) The High Court's orders were set aside without interfering with the State's locking of the premises, and the pending civil suit is to be decided on its own merits (paras 11–12).

(paras 4–12)

Case Details: State of Telangana v. M.A. Garden Function Hall (2026 INSC 995)

Final Outcome: Appeals allowed; High Court Single Judge's order dated 12.09.2025 and Division Bench judgment dated 30.12.2025 set aside; State's locking of the premises not interfered with; civil suit to proceed on merits.

Case: The State of Telangana and Others v. M.A. Garden Function Hall and Others Etc.

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 995

Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 12895–12896 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 3016–3017 of 2026)

Court: Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) – Non-Reportable

Date of Decision: 16 September 2026

Bench: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra (author) and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar

Relevant Acts & Sections: Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 – Sections 6 and 7; Constitution of India – Article 226

Impugned Orders: Telangana High Court – Single Judge's common order dated 12.09.2025 in W.P. Nos. 27715 and 27718 of 2025, and Division Bench's common judgment dated 30.12.2025 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1031 and 1032 of 2025 (paras 7–8, 11)

Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)

Key Holdings of the Supreme Court

• Lessees claiming possession through a Trust cannot file a writ petition when the High Court has already decided against the Trust and the Trust's SLP has been withdrawn (para 10).
• The High Court could not exercise writ jurisdiction in the teeth of its own earlier Division Bench judgment and the Supreme Court's order permitting withdrawal (para 10).
• Having held earlier that a writ court could not record a finding on possession, the High Court ought not to have entertained a second writ petition only for protection of possession (para 10).
• The lessees' writ petitions appeared aimed at securing an interim order that only the civil court could have considered (para 10).
• The impugned orders were set aside without interfering with the State's locking of the premises (para 11).
• The pending civil suit will be decided on its own merits (para 12).

Brief Facts of the Case

On 26.06.1997, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Himayathnagar issued a notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 to M/s. Kishan Chand Foundation Trust to show cause why it should not be evicted from 4678 sq. m. in T.S. No. 19, Ward No. 54, Block-L, Gaganmahal Village, Hyderabad. The Trust claims ownership under a registered sale deed of 1968 (para 2).

The Trust's civil suit was dismissed in 2001 on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction, and its appeal was dismissed in 2002 for non-prosecution. Its writ petition against the Section 6 and Section 7 proceedings was allowed by a Single Judge on 26.04.2005 (para 3).

On the State's writ appeal, the Division Bench on 07.09.2022 set aside the Single Judge's order, holding that a writ court is not a forum to declare possession or title amid serious factual disputes, and noting the Trust's non-disclosure and the statutory remedies of appeal and revision (para 4).

The Trust's SLP was initially met with a status quo order on 26.09.2022, but on 09.09.2025 it was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit, without further interim protection (para 5).

Immediately thereafter, M.A. Garden Function Hall and another person, claiming to be lessees of the Trust, filed writ petitions. The Single Judge on 12.09.2025 restrained dispossession, directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to unlock the function hall and gave the Trust ten days to obtain interim orders from the civil court. The Division Bench dismissed the State's writ appeals on 30.12.2025 (paras 6–8).

The Trust filed a suit on 16.09.2025, but no interim order was granted within the ten days (para 9).

Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether lessees claiming through the Trust could maintain writ petitions to protect possession after the Division Bench judgment against the Trust and the withdrawal of the Trust's SLP (para 10).
2. Whether the High Court could grant protection of possession in writ jurisdiction in the face of its earlier finding that a writ court cannot decide possession (para 10).

Court's Findings and Reasoning

Earlier orders binding (paras 4–5, 10): The Division Bench judgment of 07.09.2022 against the Trust was not interfered with when the SLP was withdrawn with liberty only to file a suit, and no further interim protection was granted.

Lessees claim through the Trust (para 10): The lessees claim possession through the Trust, against whom the Division Bench has already ruled. It was therefore not open to them to file a writ petition.

No writ jurisdiction in the teeth of earlier orders (para 10): The Single Judge and the Division Bench could not exercise writ jurisdiction contrary to the earlier orders of the Division Bench and the Supreme Court. Having held that a writ court could not record a finding of possession, the High Court ought not to have entertained a second writ petition only for protection of possession.

Device to obtain interim relief (para 10): The Court found it significant that the writ petitions were filed by the lessees, not the Trust, soon after the SLP's withdrawal. It appeared that, since the Trust could not file a writ petition, the lessees came forward only to secure an interim order that could otherwise be considered only by the civil court.

Liberty not availed (para 9): Although the suit was filed on 16.09.2025, no interim order was obtained within the ten days, so the liberty granted by the Single Judge was not effectively availed of.

Final Outcome and Directions

• The Single Judge's order dated 12.09.2025 in W.P. Nos. 27715 and 27718 of 2025 and the Division Bench judgment dated 30.12.2025 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1031 and 1032 of 2025 are set aside (para 11).
• The State's action of locking the premises is not interfered with (para 11).
• The civil suit already filed shall be decided on its own merits (para 12).
• Appeals allowed (para 13).

Legal Principle Laid Down

Persons claiming possession through a party against whom a writ court has already declined to decide possession, and whose SLP was withdrawn with liberty only to file a civil suit, cannot seek protection of possession through a fresh writ petition. A High Court should not exercise Article 226 jurisdiction in the teeth of its own earlier binding judgment and the Supreme Court's order; disputed possession and title must be left to the civil court.

Precedents Relied Upon

• No precedent is cited in the judgment. The Court relied on the earlier orders in the same dispute: the Division Bench judgment dated 07.09.2022 in Writ Appeal No. 1243 of 2005 and the Supreme Court's order dated 09.09.2025 in SLP (C) No. 16769 of 2022. Discussed at paras 4, 5, 10.

Important Paragraphs of the Judgment

Verbatim extracts from the judgment. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.

Para 5: "Significantly, while permitting withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition, this Court did not grant any further interim protection in favour of the Trust."

Para 9: "Thus, the fact remains that the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge has not been effectively availed of within the period of ten days."

Para 10: "... 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."

Para 10: "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."

Para 10: "... a second writ petition filed by the lessees only for protection of possession ought not to have been entertained."

Para 12: "Needless to say, the suit shall be decided on its own merits."

Practical Impact of the Ruling

• For lessees and occupants: Those claiming through an owner or Trust are bound by adverse orders against that owner, and cannot use a fresh writ petition to obtain protection the owner could not get (para 10).
• For State authorities: Action under the Land Encroachment Act, upheld in writ appeal, cannot be stalled by fresh writs from persons claiming through the same party (paras 10–11).
• For High Courts: Writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to protect possession where serious disputes on title and possession exist and earlier binding orders hold the civil court to be the proper forum (paras 4, 10).
• For litigants given liberty to sue: Interim protection must be sought and obtained from the civil court within the time allowed (para 9).

FAQs on Lessees' Writ Petition for Possession

1. What did the Supreme Court decide in State of Telangana v. M.A. Garden Function Hall?

It set aside the Telangana High Court's orders protecting the possession of the lessees of the Trust and left the dispute to the pending civil suit, without disturbing the State's locking of the premises (paras 11–12).

2. Why could the lessees not file a writ petition?

Because they claim possession through the Trust, against which the Division Bench had already ruled and whose SLP had been withdrawn with liberty only to file a suit (para 10).

3. What had the High Court held in the earlier writ appeal?

That a writ court under Article 226 is not a forum for declaring possession or title where serious factual disputes exist (para 4).

4. Did the Supreme Court decide ownership of the land?

No. It said the civil suit already filed will be decided on its own merits (para 12).

5. What happens to the function hall premises now?

The Supreme Court did not interfere with the State's action of locking the premises (para 11).

Keywords: 2026 INSC 995, State of Telangana v. M.A. Garden Function Hall, Kishan Chand Foundation Trust, Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act 1905, Section 7 notice, lessees writ petition, Article 226, disputed possession, SLP withdrawn with liberty, civil suit, Gaganmahal Hyderabad, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Supreme Court non-reportable judgment

Related on LegalTaxGuru

• More Supreme Court Non-Reportable judgments
• Civil/Criminal articles

Download Judgment PDF – State of Telangana v. M.A. Garden Function Hall

Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 995 – The State of Telangana & Ors. v. M.A. Garden Function Hall & Ors. Etc. (Civil Appeal Nos. 12895–12896 of 2026) – Download Judgment PDF

Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).