The High Court of Telangana has reaffirmed the constitutional imperative to preserve the status quo in land possession disputes pending final adjudication, emphasizing that arbitrary state interference violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution. This order provides critical procedural clarity for property owners facing unauthorized demolition or fencing removal by municipal agencies.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Pogulakonda Pratap, is the lawful owner of private land measuring 2 acres and 00 guntas in Survey No. 4415, Maktha Mahboobpet Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He had erected a boundary fence to demarcate and protect his property from encroachment. The fourth respondent, Hyderabad Disaster Response and Asset Protection Agency (HYDRAA), unilaterally removed and disturbed this fencing without notice, legal authority, or due process, claiming the land was part of a public development zone.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed two concurrent remedies:
- Writ Petition No. 2040 of 2026: Under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus to declare HYDRAA’s action illegal and unconstitutional.
- I.A. No. 1 of 2026: Under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking interim relief to maintain the status quo pending disposal of the writ petition.
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contended that:
- The fencing was lawful and non-obstructive
- HYDRAA acted without jurisdiction, notice, or hearing
- The action violated Articles 14, 21, and 300A of the Constitution
HYDRAA did not dispute possession but argued that structures on the land were under investigation for potential encroachment. It requested time to obtain further instructions and cited other pending writ petitions where similar status quo orders had been issued.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought immediate restoration of the fencing, a declaration that HYDRAA’s actions were illegal, and a permanent injunction against further interference with his peaceful possession.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court can grant interim status quo relief under Article 226 to prevent state agencies from disturbing physical possession of private property pending final adjudication, particularly when constitutional rights under Article 300A are invoked.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Sri B. Mayur Reddy, Senior Counsel, relied on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to argue that Article 21 encompasses the right to peaceful enjoyment of property. He cited State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das to emphasize that Article 300A prohibits deprivation of property except by authority of law, and that no such authority was shown. He also referenced a prior order dated 07.01.2026 in W.P. No. 354 of 2026, where this Court had granted similar relief under identical facts.
For the Respondent
Sri Sameer Ahmed, Senior Standing Counsel for HYDRAA, conceded that the land was under scrutiny for potential unauthorized construction but argued that the agency was acting in public interest. He did not dispute the petitioner’s possession but sought time to verify records. He noted that in other pending writs, courts had directed parties to maintain status quo, implicitly acknowledging the legitimacy of interim protection.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the interplay between Article 300A, which guarantees protection against arbitrary deprivation of property, and the procedural safeguards under Articles 14 and 21. It observed that while the state may regulate land use, it cannot unilaterally destroy or remove boundary markers without notice, hearing, or judicial sanction.
"The removal of fencing without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice and undermines the constitutional guarantee of property rights under Article 300A."
The Court distinguished this case from those involving outright encroachment on public land, noting that the petitioner had established lawful possession through documentary evidence and physical occupation. It held that interim protection is not only permissible but mandatory when constitutional rights are at stake and the state’s action is not supported by a final order or statutory authority.
The Court also noted the consistency of its own prior ruling in W.P. No. 354 of 2026, reinforcing the principle that status quo must be preserved where possession is peaceful and no court has yet declared the property liable for acquisition or demolition.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that status quo must be maintained regarding the petitioner’s land pending final disposal of the writ petition. HYDRAA and all other respondents are restrained from interfering with the fencing or physical possession of the property. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle-21, was suo moto impleaded to ensure compliance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Status Quo Is Not Discretionary - It Is Mandatory
- Practitioners must immediately move for interim status quo under Section 151 CPC or Article 226 when state agencies remove fencing, demolish structures, or disrupt possession without notice
- Courts will treat such interference as a prima facie violation of Article 300A and natural justice
- The burden shifts to the state to justify its action with a valid order, not mere allegations of encroachment
Documentary Evidence of Possession Is Sufficient for Interim Relief
- A title deed, tax receipt, or survey record establishing possession is adequate to invoke interim protection
- Oral claims by officials about "potential encroachment" cannot override documented ownership
- Physical possession coupled with documentary proof creates a strong prima facie case for injunction
HYDRAA and Similar Agencies Cannot Act Unilaterally
- Agencies like HYDRAA, DDA, or MCDs must obtain court orders before disturbing private property
- No statutory provision empowers them to act as adjudicators of title or possession
- Any such action invites writ jurisdiction and potential liability for damages
