Lessees claiming through an owner cannot invoke writ jurisdiction after the owner’s challenge was withdrawn.

M/s. Kishan Chand Foundation Trust claimed ownership of 4,678 sq. metres of land at Gaganmahal Village, Hyderabad, under a registered sale deed executed in 1968. The Mandal Revenue Officer issued notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (“1905 Act”) on 26 June 1997, alleging encroachment.

The High Court Single Judge quashed the proceedings, but the Division Bench allowed the State’s appeal, holding that disputed questions of title and possession could not be decided in writ jurisdiction and that statutory appellate and revisional remedies were available. The Trust’s Special Leave Petition was subsequently withdrawn with liberty to institute a fresh suit; no further interim protection was granted.

Thereafter, the Trust’s alleged lessees instituted writ petitions challenging the State authorities’ action in taking possession. The High Court directed that they not be dispossessed, ordered the premises to be unlocked, and granted the Trust ten days to approach the civil court. The Division Bench affirmed that order.

Although a civil suit was instituted on 16 September 2025, no interim order was obtained within the stipulated ten days. The State challenged the High Court’s orders before the Supreme Court.

Whether the lessees, claiming possession through the Trust, could maintain fresh writ petitions seeking protection of possession after the Trust’s earlier challenge had culminated in an un interfered Division Bench judgment and withdrawal of the Trust’s Special Leave Petition with liberty to file a civil suit.

Whether the High Court could exercise writ jurisdiction to grant interim protection and direct unlocking of the premises when the dispute involved serious questions of title and possession and the civil court was the appropriate forum.

Whether the High Court’s orders granting protection to the lessees were liable to be set aside.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, under which writ jurisdiction is ordinarily inappropriate for adjudicating disputed questions of title or possession requiring factual determination.

It considered Sections 6 and 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, which provide for proceedings for eviction and removal of encroachments, together with the statutory appellate and revisional remedies available against such orders.

The Court further applied the principle that a party claiming possession through a litigant cannot circumvent the consequences of prior proceedings by instituting a parallel writ petition, particularly where the earlier judgment has not been set aside and the affected party has been directed to pursue a civil remedy.

The Supreme Court held that the earlier Division Bench had expressly found that disputed possession could not be determined in writ proceedings and had pointed to the statutory remedies under the 1905 Act.

The Trust’s subsequent withdrawal of its Special Leave Petition did not disturb that judgment; it merely preserved liberty to institute a fresh suit, without continuing interim protection.

Since the lessees claimed possession through the Trust, they could not obtain indirectly, through fresh writ petitions, the interim protection that the Trust itself was no longer entitled to seek in writ jurisdiction.

The High Court therefore erred in entertaining the lessees’ petitions, ordering the premises to be unlocked, and restraining the State from taking possession, particularly when the civil suit had been filed and no interim relief had been secured from the competent civil court within the prescribed period.

The Court did not interfere with the State’s action of locking the premises. The pending civil suit was left to be decided on its own merits.