1
Dr. GRR, J
CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2717 OF 2022 & 2659 OF 2022
and I.A. No.3 of 2022 in CRP No.2659 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
C.R.P. No.2717 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners-respondents-
defendants aggrieved by the injunction order, passed on merits, dated 24.11.2022 in I.A.No.354 of 2022 in O.S.No.365 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam.
C.R.P. No.2659 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners-respondents- defendants aggrieved by the ex parte ad-interim injunction order dated 27.10.2022 in I.A.No.355 of 2022 in O.S.No.365 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam
2. The respondent in both the revision petitions is the plaintiff in O.S.No.365 of 2022.
2
Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022
3. Since both the revision cases arise out of the same suit and the parties also are same, both the revision cases are disposed of through this common order.
4. The parties are herein after referred as arrayed before the trial court.
5. The case of the plaintiff was that he was the absolute owner, pattadar and title holder of the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.15.04 gts. situated in Pusugudem Village, Mulakalapalli Mandal of Bhadradri- Kothagudem District. He got succeeded to the schedule property through his father late Abdul Raheem who in turn acquired the same from his predecessors in title. Since then, his family was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule land uninterruptedly. Their names were recorded in the land records right from the date of acquisition i.e., prior to the years 1954-55. ROR Passbook and title deed followed by e-Pass Book bearing No.T 27180020413 were issued in his name. He was getting raitu bandhu amount in respect of the schedule land regularly. He got ploughed the schedule land and sown green gram seeds on 24.10.2022. On the next day i.e., on 25.10.2022, the respondents - defendants along with their men and supporters illegally destroyed the barbed wire fencing and poles and trespassed into the schedule land by using criminal force, spoiled the cultivated land and made hurried attempts to put up tarpaulin tents with a 3 Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022 malafide intention to grab the possession of the schedule land from his hands. They were making repeated attempts to dispossess him and were threatening him with dire consequences taking advantage of their communal strength. As part of their illegal activities, they attacked with deadly weapons on their tractor driver, and tried to take away the lives of his family. Aggrieved by their attempt, the tractor driver gave a complaint to the Station House Officer, Mulakalapalli on 26.10.2022. Being an old aged person, he was not able to resist the illegal activities of the respondents and gave complaint to the Police, duly enclosing his land records. But the Police advised him to approach the court since the dispute was civil in nature.
6. With a false intention to grab the schedule land from his hands, the respondents repeatedly gave false complaints against him alleging that he had no right over the schedule land and it was Forest or Government land. Responding on their application, the District Collector & District Magistrate, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District ordered for enquiry by the Tahsildar, Mulakalapalli through endorsement dated 05.09.2022. In the said enquiry, they submitted their explanation duly explaining their exclusive rights over the schedule land. After verification, the Tahsildar, Mulakalapalli submitted enquiry report to the District Collector on 07.09.2022 vide R.C.No.B/410/2021 in which the Tahsildar clearly mentioned that the 4 Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022 petitioner's family was having exclusive rights and physical possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land.
7. Prior to that also the respondents - defendants and their men gave another petition to the District Collector in Prajavani in RC.No.BDRDC/E/2021/0080 on 04.10.2021 against the petitioner's family members suspecting their title and right over the subject land. In the said matter, the Tahsildar conducted detailed enquiry and confirmed the family patta rights over their respective shares and about their title, rights and records over the land and submitted to the District Collector vide his report in R.C.No.B/410/2021 dated 08.10.2021.
8. With regard to the allegation of the respondents that the plaintiff and his family members occupied reserve forest land in northern boundary also, a joint inspection was conducted by the Revenue and Forest Department, on application of his brother Shabber Ahmed on 09.04.2015. The concerned forest and revenue officials conducted joint survey and field inspection and reported on 07.05.2015 and 08.05.2015. Basing on the survey and inspection reports, the then Tahsildar sent a letter to the Divisional Forest Officer, Palvoncha vide R.C.No.468/2013, dated 12.05.2015 duly enclosing the field map and survey details. As per the Joint Inspection, it was found that the forest department persons encroached into their land by leaving their old 5 Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022 reserve line and boundary pillars. Accordingly, they were being ordered to remove their new boundary pillars and advised to set back to their original old boundary.
9. All the above reports and records would crystal clearly establish their rights over the schedule land. The Station House Officer, Mulakalapalli registered criminal complaints against the respondents vide FIR.No.132 of 2021 on 13.08.2021 under Sections 294(b), 506, 447 and 427 of IPC and FIR in Crime No.136 of 2022 against the respondents on 26.10.2022, basing on the complaint given by the plaintiff. Hence, the petitioner filed O.S. No.365 of 2022 along with I.A. Nos.354 of 2022 and 355 of 2022 under Rule 42 (a &
c) of Agency Rules, 1924 read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC with a prayer to grant ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents or persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner - plaintiff over the schedule land.
10. The trial court granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction as prayed for by the petitioner - plaintiff in I.A. No.355 of 2022 by order dated 27.10.2022.
11. The respondent No.1 filed counter in I.A. No.354 of 2022 on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 6 also. He contended that the petitioner-plaintiff was not in possession and enjoyment of the land in question as on the date of filing of the suit. The entire land belonged to Government and the respondents were 6 Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022 in possession and enjoyment of the land in question by raising houses in the said land and were living there. Suppressing the said aspects, the petitioner obtained revenue record in his name without having any title or possession over the land particularly in Survey No.241 in question which was a Government Land. The title was vested with the government. If any person obtained pattadar passbooks by fraudulently claiming the Government land, the same was liable to be cancelled under Section 8 of the New Pattadar Passbooks Act 9 of 2020 and they were taking steps to cancel the said pattadar passbooks. Inspite of knowing all these things, the Tahsildar was acting in favour of the petitioner. The Tahsildar was liable to be punished. 11.1. Taking undue advantage of the court orders dated 27.10.2022 passed in I.A. No.355 of 2022, the Police were also acting beyond their powers. Under the said circumstances, the respondents filed Writ Petition vide W.P.No.40881 of 2022 questioning the arbitrary action of the Police and also filed separate civil revision petitions to suspend the order dated 27.10.2022 passed by the trial court.
11.2 The petitioner filed the suit suppressing all the material facts, managing the revenue authorities. It was settled law that for grant of temporary injunction, 'possession follows title' and for grant of permanent injunction 'title follows possession'. At any cost, the plaintiff was not having 7 Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022 any title over the suit schedule property which belonged to Government and the respondents were in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. The petitioner was claiming the land in Survey No.241 in question to an extent of Ac.15.04gts, but the entire land in Survey No.241 belonged to Government. The land available in the said survey was around 4000 acres. The plaintiff was claiming which part of the property in Survey No.241 was not clear. The plaintiff could approach the survey department to conduct the survey and for demarcation of the land he was claiming. Without conducting survey and without identifying the location of the property, the plaintiff straightaway approached the court which was not maintainable. When the identity of the property was suspicious, grant of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff without having possession as on the date of filing of the suit was not in accordance with law and prayed to dismiss the I.A.
12. On hearing both the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondents - defendants and on considering the documents filed by both the parties, the trial court i.e., the Court of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam granted interim injunction allowing the petition in I.A.No.354 of 2022 restraining the respondents and their agents, servants, henchmen on their behalf from interfering with the physical possession and 8 Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022 enjoyment of the petitioner over the schedule land till final disposal of the suit by order dated 24.11.2022.
13. Challenging the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 27.10.2022 in I.A. No.355 of 2022, the respondents - defendants filed Civil Revision Petition No.2659 of 2022 contending that the order under revision was a non- speaking order, as per Order 39 rule 3 proviso of CPC, the ex-parte injunction must give reasons, merely granting ex-parte temporary injunction order was liable to be set aside in view of the order laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha Etc. Etc v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi1.
14. Challenging the order dated 24.11.2022 in I.A.No.354 of 2022 in O.S.No.365 of 2022, the respondents - defendants preferred Civil Revision Petition No.2717 of 2022 contending that the order under revision was liable to be set aside on the ground that the trial court failed to mark the documents as per the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in T. Bhoopal Reddy and another v. K.R. Lakshmi Bai and another 2 and in similar judgments reported in R.Parijatham and Ors Vs. M.Kameshwari & Ors3 and in Mahaveer Infoway Ltd., Hyderabad and another v. Tech Minfy 1 1993 (3) SCC 161 2 1998 (1) ALD 770 DB 3 2017 (5) ALD 348 9 Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022 Info Solutions Llp, Hyderabad and another4. The order under revision would indicate that the orders were passed by the trial court basing on the report submitted by the Inspector of Police dated 21.11.2022. Since the said injunction order was passed basing on the reports, the same was liable to be rejected.
15. He further submitted that the petitioner had also filed I.A.No.355 of 2022 seeking urgent orders of ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Against the said orders, the respondents filed C.R.P.No.2659 of 2022 and the Court granted status quo order on 23.11.2022. I.A.No.354 of 2022 was filed on 26.10.2022, but without passing orders in the said I.A., the trial court after receipt of the directions from this Court passed in C.R.P.No.2659 of 2022 dated 23.11.2022, passed the present order under revision with a malafide intention to get over from the orders passed by this Court. The Kasra Pahani would show that the entire land in Survey No.241 was a Government Land and there was no sub-division and there was no supplementary Sethwar issued in the said survey number. The plaintiff manipulated the revenue record and obtained pattadar passbook and wanted to grab the land from the possession of the tribals in question. The aspect would reveal from the information obtained by way of RTI application from the Tahsildar dated 07.09.2022. The said information would indicate that the plantiff and his 4 2017 (5) ALD 351 (DB) 10 Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022 family members were the occupants and they were cultivating the land at some other place other than the land in Survey No.241. Without conducting survey, the authorities could not say that the plaintiff was residing in which survey number. The said report dated 07.09.2022 filed by the plaintiff would clearly indicate that without conducting survey of the land, the location of the plaintiff's land could not be determined. On the other hand, as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was not in possession and enjoyment of the land in question. The said aspect was revealed from the petition in I.A.No.417 of 2022 filed by the plaintiff on 21.11.2022 seeking for disobedience of the orders. At present, the defendants erected tents in the schedule property. Therefore, as on the date of passing of status quo orders by this Court dated 23.11.2022, the respondents have erected tents in the schedule land and the same was recognized by the plaintiff in I.A.No.417 of 2022. The Plaintiff with the help of muscle and political power filed false complaints against the respondents before the Police. The Police registered the same as Crime No.132 of 2022. Basing on the said documents, the plaintiff filed O.S.No.362 of 2022 for permanent injunction and obtained temporary injunction in I.A.No.354 of 2022 dated 24.11.2022. The trial court without considering all the said aspects, mechanically passed the orders under revision. The revision petitioners were residing in an agency area. They were all Scheduled Tribes. The land in question was also situated in 11 Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022 agency area and the Schedule Tribe people were entitled to get patta in the lands which were in their possession. The plaintiff was a non-tribe and was not entitled for grant of patta, since the land in question belonged to Government. At any cost, the plaintiff was not in possession and enjoyment over the land in question, as such, he was not entitled to get any injunction order and prayed to allow the civil revision petitions.
16. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners-defendants and the learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff in both the revision cases.
17. Perused the impugned orders. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, on considering the pleadings and the documents filed by both the parties observed that the respondents - defendants in their representations to the District Collector, Bhadradri-Kothagudem admitted the physical possession and enjoyment of the petitioner-plaintiff over the schedule land since decades. He also observed that the respondents-defendants were trespassers and erected tents. The document filed by the respondents i.e., the Sethwar marked in Survey No.241/2, was not concerned with the schedule land as the schedule land was in Survey No.241/1. He also noted that out of the total extent of land in Survey No.241 to an extent of 3424.36 guntas, there was a patta land to an extent of 40 acres and the petitioner-plaintiff's land was 12 Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022 within the patta land as per the report of the Tahsildar, Mulakalapalli Mandal and survey demarcation and e-pattadar pass book and DD bearing No.T27180020413 in Survey No.241 of 2022 of Pusugudem Village of Mulakalapalli Mandal. He also considered the series of FIRs and the newspaper clippings and the report of Sub-Inspector of Police of Mulakalapalli P.S. dated 22.11.2022 informing about the respondents - defendants continuous illegal activities and their disobedience, criminal trespass / breach of trust inspite of their efforts to implement court orders in I.A.No.355 of 2022 in O.S.No.365 of 2022 dated 27.10.2022 and Police Protection Order in I.A.No.395 of 2022 in O.S.No.365 of 2022 dated 10.11.2022.
18. The petitioner-plaintiff had filed online pahanies pertaining to the years 2012, 2014 and 2015, copy of e-pattadar passbook and DD bearing No. T27180020413 and copies of Dharani extract in proof of his possession over the schedule property. The reports of the Tahsildar dated 08.10.2021, 07.09.2022 also would disclose that the petitioner - plaintiff was in possession of the schedule property. The contention of the respondents - defendants was that the entire land in Survey No.241 belonged to Government and the petitioner - plaintiff occupied the Government Land. If the petitioner - plaintiff had encroached the Government land, necessary 13 Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022 action would be taken by the Government for getting him vacated from the said land. The documents filed by the petitioner would disclose that the petitioner and his ancestors were in possession of petition schedule property since 1954-55. The courts need to protect the persons in possession of the property, but not the ones who were anticipating to get their rights. Even though, the revision petitioners - respondents were Scheduled Tribes and were residing in the agency area, they cannot occupy the private patta lands and claim possession contending that the land belonged to Government and forcibly oust the petitioner-plaintiff from the possession of the property.
19. No single document was filed by the revision petitioners - respondents in proof of their possession over the schedule property.
20. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners - respondents - defendants in CRP No.2659 of 2022 that the order dated 27.10.2022 granting ex-parte ad-interim injunction was a non-speaking order, the same was suspended. As the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that there were houses in the schedule property and the respondents were trying to evict the petitioner from the said houses, a 'status quo' order was granted on 23.11.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in C.R.P.No.2659 of 2022. But, on considering the merits of the case, it is considered fit to vacate the 'status quo' order dated 23.11.2022 and to dismiss the Civil 14 Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022 Revision Petition No.2659 of 2022. Accordingly, I.A. No.3 of 2022 is allowed.
21. This Court does not find any illegality in the order dated 24.11.2022 in I.A .No.354 of 2022 in O.S. No.365 of 2022 passed by the trial court in granting injunction to the petitioner - plantiff restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession over the schedule property.
22. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petition Nos.2717 of 2022 and 2659 of 2022 are dismissed. The order dated 24.11.2022 in I.A.No.354 of 2022 in O.S.No.365 of 2022 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, is confirmed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J January 11, 2023 Note:
Furnish C.C. today.
B.O.
nsk.