Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P Jogarao/Jogaiah And 3 Others vs The Divisional Forest Officer ... on 16 March, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
APPEAL SUIT No.212 of 2021
JUDGMENT:-
This is a plaintiffs' appeal, filed against the judgment
and decree of the Agent to the Government, East Godavari
District, Kakinada, dated 29.01.2020 in O.S.No.7 of 2019.
2. Heard Sri Y.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for
the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for
Forests.
3. The appellants claim ownership of Ac.1.48 cents in
R.S.No.4/A, Ac.1.48 cents in R.S.No.4/AA, Ac.1.48 cents in
S.No.4/E, Ac.1.47 cents in S.No.4/EEE and Ac.1.47 cents in
S.No.4/VU of Yerrampeta Village of Chintoor Revenue Mandal,
Erstwhile Khammam District, now in East Godavari District.
They appear to have filed O.S.No.31 of 2000 in the Court of
the Special Agent, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam seeking an
injunction restraining the respondents, who are officials of the
Forest Department, from interfering with their possession over
the said land. Initially, the said Court had granted an interim
direction in I.A.No.24 of 2000, by way of an order dated
17.04.2000. After a counter had been filed in the matter and
after hearing the parties, the Court had vacated the said
injunction by an order dated 18.09.2000.
RRR,J
A.S.No.212 of 2021
4. Thereafter, the appellants filed O.S.NO.7 of 2019
before the Agent for recovery of possession of the plaint
schedule property.
5. This suit was dismissed by the Agent by a
judgment and decree dated 29.01.2020. In the order of
dismissal, the Agent holds that since the interim injunction,
restraining the respondents, from interfering with the
possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property has
been dismissed, nothing survives in the present case and on
that basis, dismissed the suit.
6. It is apparent that the Agent was unable to
understand the distinction between a suit for injunction and a
suit for recovery of possession in fact the suit was dismissed
without evidence being recorded even though the plaintiffs are
said to have been present physically in the Court.
7. The appellants having accepted the fact that they
were not in a position of suit schedule property, have filed the
present suit for recovery of possession. Such a suit cannot be
dismissed on the ground that their application, for temporary
injunction restraining the other side, from interfering with
their possession has been dismissed.
8. It appears that there has been clear non
application of mind in the disposal of this suit and the same
requires to be corrected at the earliest.
RRR,J
A.S.No.212 of 2021
9. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed and the suit is
remanded back to the Agent, for a proper adjudication in the
matter. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Date : -03-2022
RJS
RRR,J
A.S.No.212 of 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
APPEAL SUIT No.212 of 2021
Date : .03.2022
RJS
RRR,J
A.S.No.212 of 2021
