Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jonnagadla Sivayya vs The State Of A.P. on 5 January, 2024
Author: R.Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R.Raghunandan Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.1142 of 2023
Jonnagadla Sivayya, S/o. Late Vengama Naidu,
Hindu, aged 77 years, Occ: Agriculturist,
R/o. Hunumanthapuram, H/o. Sam Sher Bahadur Peta,
Pitchatoor Mandal, Tirupati,
Tirupati District and another.
... Appellants
Vs.
The State of A.P. Rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department,
Secretariat, A.P., Velagapudi, Amaravati,
Guntur District and seven others.
... Respondents
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. A. Chandraiah Naidu
Counsel for the Respondents : G.P. for Mines and Geology-R1 to R3
G.P. for Revenue - R4 & R5
G.P. for Home - R7
2 HCJ & RRR, J
Dt.: 05.01.2024
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (Oral):
The appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent has
been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.11.2023
passed in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No.29373 of 2023.
2. Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:
In the first round of litigation, initiated by the appellant in the
High Court, a petition was filed bearing No.13473 of 2023. In this
petition, the appellant had questioned the action of the official
respondents in "resorting to grant permission to M/s.KNR
Constructions Limited for excavating the soil from the property
over which the petitioner claimed title and possession".
3. The case set up was that although a suit for declaration and
permanent injunction in regard to the subject property was
dismissed by the trial Court, an appeal was preferred against the
said judgment and decree, which came to be dismissed for non-
prosecution and in regard to which an application for restoration
has since been filed.
3 HCJ & RRR, J
4. The case was that, without issuing any notice to the
petitioner, the official respondents were in the process of
permitting M/s.KNR Constructions Limited to excavate the land in
question.
By virtue of an interim order, dated 18.05.2023, the writ
Court, as an interim measure, directed that the petitioners be not
dispossessed.
5. To put the records straight, subsequently by virtue of order
dated 06.11.2023, the said writ petition was dismissed as having
been rendered infructuous in view of the fact that the official
respondents had, in the mean time, issued an order dated
30.10.2023 by the Mines and Geology Department, according
temporary permit in favour of M/s. KNR Constructions Limited for
excavation of the Earth over an extent of 3.9 Hectares in
Sy.Nos.188 and 194 of the land over which the petitioner claimed
an interest, right and title.
Since liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the
order dated 30.10.2023, the appellant herein preferred yet again
writ petition bearing No.29373 of 2023 challenging the order
issued by the Mines and Geology Department and sought an interim
relief.
4 HCJ & RRR, J
The learned single Judge, however, held that the petitioners
had failed to establish prima facie possession over the land in
question and had not placed any document in support of their claim
of possession. Although, the learned single Judge did notice that the
writ Court had earlier on 18.05.2023 issued an interim direction
that the petitioners be not dispossessed.
Notwithstanding the fact that the learned single Judge did not
grant any interim relief in favour of the petitioner, yet proceeded to
direct the official respondents to file a detailed counter based upon
the allegation in the writ petition that there was some collusion
between the official respondents and M/s. KNR Constructions
Limited with a view to confer the benefit of the mining rights in
favour of the said private respondent.
It is this order which has now been challenged before us in the
present appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants would urge that the
learned single Judge ought to have granted interim relief against
the respondents inasmuch as the petitioner had made out a prima
facie case in his favour. It is also stated that although the petitioner
could not file documents to show their possession over the land in
question yet assuming that the land belonged to the Government
5 HCJ & RRR, J
yet being agricultural land, the same could not have even
temporarily been permitted for excavation of the Earth unless its
use was changed from agriculture to non-agriculture after following
the due process as prescribed by law.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, urged
that there is nothing perverse in the order passed by the learned
single Judge, which would warrant interference by this Court in
appeal proceedings.
Reliance was placed upon Wander Limited and another Vs.
Antox India Pvt. Ltd.1 and Purshottam Vishandas Raheja & another
Vs. Shrichand Vishandas Raheja and Ors2 to emphasize the
principle of law that interference by the appellate Court against an
order passed by a learned single Judge exercising its discretion was
permissible only where the discretion had been exercised
arbitrarily or capriciously. In Wander Limited and another Vs.
Antox India Pvt. Ltd., the Apex Court held:
"The appeals before the Division Bench were
against the exercise of discretion by the Single Judge.
In such appeals, the Appellate Court will not interfere
with the exercise of discretion of the court of first
instance and substitute its own discretion except
[(1990) Supp. SCC 727]
[(2011) 6 SCC 73]
6 HCJ & RRR, J
where the discretion has been shown to have been
exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or
where the court had ignored the settled principles of
law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory
injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion
is said to be an appeal on principle. Appellate Court
will not reassess the material and seek to reach a
conclusion different from the one reached by the
court below if the one reached by the court was
reasonably possible on the material. The appellate
court would normally not be justified in interfering
with the exercise of discretion under appeal solely on
the ground that if it had considered the matter at the
trial stage it would have come to a contrary
conclusion. If the discretion has been exercised by the
Trial Court reasonably and in a judicial manner the
fact that the appellate court would have taken a
different view may not justify interference with the
trial court's exercise of discretion."
8. The aforementioned settled proposition of law has been
followed consistently and reiterated in the case of Purshottam
Vishandas Raheja & another Vs. Shrichand Vishandas Raheja and
Ors.
9. On a perusal of the judgment and order impugned, it can
clearly be seen that the learned single Judge did not find a good
case for grant of any interim relief in favour of the appellants
inasmuch as it specifically recorded that the appellants had failed
to establish even prima facie that they were in possession of the
property in question which was the subject matter of the writ
7 HCJ & RRR, J
petition. No document other than the interim order dated
18.05.2023 passed in W.P.No.13473 of 2023 had been placed on
record according to the learned single Judge.
10. Apart from this, the Civil Suit for declaration and interim
injunction had also been dismissed by the trial Court in which a
clear finding was recorded that the plaintiffs had not proved the
case that the scheduled properties belong to them and that they
were in enjoyment and possession of the same. Although an appeal,
preferred against the said judgment and decree, also stood
dismissed for non-prosecution and notwithstanding the fact that an
application for restoration had been filed, the appeal had since not
been restored to its original number.
11. The learned single Judge was therefore not under any
obligation in law to pass an interim order in favour of the
petitioners only because it had chosen to file such a writ petition in
the absence of any prima facie proof of title or possession. Even the
interim order dated 18.05.2023 passed by the writ Court in the
earlier proceedings had been vacated by virtue of the dismissal of
the writ petition as having been rendered infructuous.
12. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that
the nature of the land was such which could not have been
8 HCJ & RRR, J
permitted to be used for excavating the Earth without effecting a
change in the user in accordance with law and that the grant of
permit in favour of the private respondent was an act of collusion
between the private respondent and the official respondents is an
issue which has been noticed by the learned single Judge inasmuch
as the Government has been asked to file a detailed counter.
However, the fact that there was some collusion between some of
the officers and the private respondents would not necessarily
warrant grant of interim relief in favour of the
petitioners/appellants herein.
13. Having considered the entire matter, we cannot persuade
ourselves to take a view by holding that there was any illegality or
perversity committed by the learned single Judge in not granting
interim relief to the petitioners.
14. Be that as it may, the appeal is found to be without any merit
and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
kbs
9 HCJ & RRR, J
_____
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
(per Dhiraj Singh Thakur, CJ)
Dt: 05.01.2024
kbs
