Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mahammed Shaheena vs Jagannati Victor Lilly Hephsibah on 16 February, 2021
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1163 OF 2020
ORDER:
1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed
questioning the order passed by the learned Principal District
Judge, Nellore in E.P.No.332 of 2020 in L.G.O.P.No.1 of 2011.
2. The 1st respondent filed L.G.O.P.No.1 of 2011 before
the Principal District Judge, Nellore against the petitioners
herein and other respondents. The said petition was decreed in
favour of the 1st respondent which was confirmed by the
appellate Court. Thereafter, the 1st respondent herein filed
E.P.No.332 of 2020 seeking execution of the order passed in
L.G.O.P.No.1 of 2011 and for delivery of property. The
petitioners and other respondents opposed the said application.
The learned District Judge, Nellore allowed the Execution
Petition and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer, to handover
the property to the decree holder.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners herein
filed the present Civil Revision Petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well
as the 1st respondent.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon
the Judgment of this Court in the case between Mohammad
Ayub Vs. Mohammad Abdul Lateef Khan and another1,
wherein this Court observed as follows:-
'The issue relates to the mode of execution of the said
order. Specific procedure is contemplated under the
Rules. Rule 15 specifically provides that the Court or
the Tribunal shall communicate its final decisions or
order to the effected parties and also to the Revenue
Divisional Officer to give effect to the decision of the
Court. The Revenue Divisional Officer shall on receipt of
the order of the Court, issue or arrange to issue a
direction deputing any officer not lower in rank than a
Revenue Inspector to take possession from the
possessor of the grabbed land on behalf of the Court
and deliver possession of the land to the person
ordered by the Court. Therefore, as there is a specific
procedure provided under the Rules, there was no need
for the person in whose favour an order was passed to
approach any authority for implementation of the said
order. In the light of the said specific procedure
provided under the Rules, no execution petition is
expected to be filed, more so before the Tribunal, which
passed the order. The exclusion of the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal or Special Court to execute its order as to
the delivery of possession is also clear from the
provisions of the Sub-Rule(10) of Rule 15 itself, where
the Tribunal has given power to execute its order
granting compensation and costs of such delivery. If
any order is passed with reference to those aspects
under the said provisions with reference to the above
said items, the execution is in accordance with the CPC
before the Tribunal itself. Therefore, it is clear that as
far as delivery of possession is concerned, when once
an order is passed by the Tribunal or Special Court,
2006(0) SCJ online(AP) 834
Revenue Divisional Officer is obligated to give effect to
the said order by implementing the same and therefore,
there was no need to file any execution petition.
6. The counsel for the respondents also did not dispute
about the legal position. In that view of the matter, the order
passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Nellore in
E.P.No.332 of 2020 in L.G.O.P.No.1 of 2011 dated 16.10.2020
is set aside. The 1st respondent is at liberty to take appropriate
steps in accordance with Rule 15 of Andhra Pradesh Land
Grabbing(Prohibition) Rules, 1988.
7. With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition
is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
_______________________
K. SURESH REDDY, J
16.02.2021
TM
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION.No.1163 of 2020
Dated:16.02.2021
TM
