THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION No. 11979 OF 2022
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
" .... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly 6th respondent herein in interfering the petitioners agricultural land in Sy.No. 473 and in Sy.No. 428 Singarayapalem Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District and also contrary to the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 358/1989 dated 30.03.1994 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif at Khammam and also violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 6th respondent herein not to interfere with the petitioners land and to pass such order orders as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Sri Mamidala Thirumal Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 6th respondent is trying to construct Kalyana Mandapam in the petitioner's land admeasuring Ac.9.26 guntas in Survey No. 473 and Ac.7.04 guntas in Survey No. 428 of Singarayapalem Village, Konijerla Mandal, Khammam District. It is submitted that the petitioners have purchased the property from their vendor on 17.02.1985 for a valuable sale consideration. It is submitted that O.S.No. 358 of 1989 was filed for declaration and injunction before the Court of the Principal District Munisff at Khammam and 2 Respondents 2 and 6 are parties to the said suit. It is submitted that the said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 30.03.1994 and since then, the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is further submitted that when there was interference by the respondents, the petitioner filed E.P.No. 291 of 2005 in O.S.No. 358 of 1989 and they also filed E.A.No. 267 of 2005 praying to provide police protection restraining the judgment debtors i.e. Gram Panchayat, Singarayapalem from interfering with the property. It is submitted that in the said E.P., an undertaking was filed before the Court by the Panchayat Secretary stating that they are not interfering with the petitioners' possession. Learned counsel submits that even the pattadar passbooks and title deeds were issued in favour of the petitioners vide proceedings dated 16.10.2007 and thereafter, they were cancelled and questioning that the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 34109 of 2012 which is pending consideration before this Court. Learned counsel submits that Respondents 7 and 8 have conducted puja for construction of function hall, hence, they have been made as parties by name.
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by Respondents No. 7 and 8, wherein it is stated that the petitioners have never 3 been in possession of the subject property and that no registered sale deed is filed. It is stated that even in the judgment, there are no findings that the petitioners are owners of the property. It is stated that the dispute is purely private in nature between the petitioners and the unofficial respondents and the petitioners have to approach the competent civil Court. It is submitted that the petitioners have never been in possession of the property and they have no knowledge how the pattadar passbooks have been issued to them.
4. Learned counsel for the unofficial respondents Sri P.Kishore Rao submits that the petitioners are claiming to have purchased the property by way of an unregistered sale deed and by virtue of the unregistered sale deed, it cannot be said that rights in the said property have been transferred to the petitioners and the petitioners have become owners of the property. He submits that basing on such unregistered sale deed, the petitioners cannot come up before this Court. He submits that the suit is decreed and property belongs to the 2nd plaintiff in the suit and it is not open to the petitioners to contend that they are owners of the property basing on an unregistered agreement of sale and the entire sale consideration is not paid by the petitioners.
4
5. In response to the same, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said sale consideration is paid.
6. The admitted facts in this case are that: petitioners are plaintiffs 3 and 4 in the suit and as per the plaint averments, these petitioners have purchased the property from plaintiff No.2 and an agreement of sale and unregistered sale deeds are executed in the said suit which is filed for declaration against the gram panchayat. The said suit was decreed wherein a categorical finding was given showing that the 2nd plaintiff is the owner of the property and the petitioners are in possession of the property. The said judgment was not questioned by the gram panchayat and it has attained finality. Now the case of the petitioners are that the unofficial respondents are interfering with their possession.
7. Though a contention is raised that by virtue of unregistered sale deed, the rights in the property cannot be transferred, the fact remains that the gram panchayat is not the owner of the property and it is held by a competent civil Court that plaintiff No.2 is the owner of the property and the Court has also given a finding that petitioners are in possession of the property. If that is the case, the respondent gram panchayat having accepted the said judgment and having not filed an 5 Appeal against the said judgment which has attained finality, now it is not open for them to say that the petitioners were never in possession of the property. Without going into further facts, as far as petitioners' title to the property is concerned, only taking into consideration the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 358 of 1980 and further, the undertaking filed by the Panchayat Secretary before the Court below, that they are not interfering with the said property, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing Respondents 1 to 6 not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners without following due process of law. As there is no relief sought against Respondents 7 and 8, no direction is given to them. No order as to costs.
8. The miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.
-----------------------------------
LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J 01st November 2022 ksld 6 7