D V L Narasamma, Khammam Dist vs M Krishnaiah, Died Per Lr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3814 Tel

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY

             CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.190 of 2017

ORDER:

This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

30.11.2016 passed in I.A.No.181 of 2016 in I.A.No.281 of 2014 in

O.S.No.385 of 2014 by the Special Assistant Agent and Sub-Divisional

Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, whereunder the petition filed

by the petitioner herein for grant of police protection for implementing

injunction order was dismissed.

2. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff is that she was granted

injunction order dated 19.04.2016 in I.A.No.281 of 2014 in

O.S.No.385 of 2014 restraining the respondents from interfering with

the possession of the petitioner in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2.01

guntas in Sy.No.26/A of Mandalapally Village, Dammapeta Mandal of

Bhadradri - Kothagudem District (suit schedule property).

The petitioner stated that she is daughter of one Morampudi

Viswanadham, who is the brother of the respondent/defendant No.1;

the defendants No.2 and 3 are sons of the defendant No.1.

The respondent/defendant No.1, the father of the plaintiff viz.

Morampudi Viswanadham and one late Morampudi Narayana are the

sons of one late Morampudi Venkata Ramaiah and they are residents

of Madalapalli village. Previously, they had ancestral property of

mango garden in an extent of Ac.4.00 guntas in Sy.No.25 and an

extent of Ac.4.02 guntas in Sy.No.26 situated as one compact block

totaling an extent of Ac.8.02 guntas. There was family arrangement

orally made about 23 years ago in respect of joint family properties.

In that arrangement, the elder brother, namely, Morampudi Krishnaiah

got an extent of Ac.4.00 guntas in Sy.No.25 on the northern side

portion out of the said Ac.8.02 guntas, towards his share. Likewise,

the father of the petitioner/plaintiff, namely, Morampudi Viswanadham

got an extent of Ac.2.01 guntas in Sy.No.26 in the middle portion and

their younger brother, namely, Morampudi Narayana got an extent of

Ac.2.01 guntas in the southern side portion in Sy.No.26 out of the

above Ac.8.02 guntas.

3. It is stated by the petitioner that the defendant No.1 had been

enjoying his share and also dug a bore well in his share. Morampudi

Narayana enjoyed his share till his death and later his wife Rathamma

came into possession and is in enjoyment of the property. The father

of the petitioner enjoyed his share till he gave the same to the

petitioner. After partition of the land, their names were entered in the

revenue records. There was sub-division of the land. The revenue

department allotted sub-division number to the share of the petitioner

in Sy.No.26/A and pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued long

back. The father of the petitioner used to obtain crop loans from the

Cooperative Society, Dammapeta.

4. The respondents contended that they are in possession of the

property since 40 years. After they appeared in the suit, they filed an

application calling for a report from the Tahsildar, Dammapeta Mandal.

The report was filed, which revealed that the petitioner is not in

possession of the land. It is thus clear that the petitioner was not in

possession of the land at the time of filing of the suit. The alleged will

executed by the father of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner is in

violation of A.P. Land Transfer of Regulation 1 of 1959 and 1 of 1970.

That about 45 years ago, the father of the petitioner and the

respondents exchanged the suit land and house site in Sy.No.131 of

Mandalapally village, in an extent of Ac.0.04 guntas. Accordingly, the

father of the petitioner came into possession of the house site and the

respondents came into possession of the suit land. Subsequently,

the brother of the petitioner, namely, Morampudi Nageshwar Rao,

sold the said house site to one Morampudi Venkateshwar Rao and he

constructed building in the said house site and by the time of

exchange itself, the respondent No.1 came into possession of the suit

land and the petitioner's father lost possession of the suit land. The

respondents are in possession and enjoyment of total extent of

Ac.6.01 guntas in Sy.No.25, which is in one block. The respondents

are raising crops in the suit schedule land. The petitioners are trying to

encroach the suit land under the guise of police protection.

The respondents relied on a judgment of this Court in POLAVARAPU

NAGAMANI v. PARUCHURI KOTESWAR RAO1.

5. The Court below, having noted the rival contentions of both the

parties, passed the impugned order by giving the following reasons:

"The standard of proof required in the case of threat of disobedience of injunction alleged breach, disobedience or violation of an order of injunction should be very high and it should be in between the standard of beyond reasonable doubt and a standard of balance on probabilities.

Heard arguments submitted that by the both counsels and documents filed by the both parties perused the documents and citations in view of the Hon'ble High court reported judgment 2010 (6) ALT 92 (D.B) Polavarapu Nagamani and Others V/S Paruchuri Koteswarao and Others. It is not a fit case for grant of police protection accordingly I.A.No.181/16 in I.A.No.281/14 in O.S.No.385/14 is hereby dismissed."

6. This Court granted interim order dated 16.04.2019 in IA.No.1 of

2017 directing the Station House Officer, Dammapeta Police Station,

to grant police protection to the petitioner. An application in IA.No.2 of

2019 was filed by the respondents to vacate the interim order dated

2010 (6) ALT 92 (DB)

16.04.2019 in IA.No.1 of 2017. The respondents asserted that they

had been in possession of the suit schedule property for the past more

than 40 years. Further on representation of the respondents to the

Superintendent of Police, Khammam District, he directed the Station

House Officer, Dammapeta to conduct enquiry. The SHO requested the

Tahsildar to furnish the land ownership particulars with location,

boundaries and possession particulars to take up further investigation,

The Tahsildar vide proceedings dated 01.08.2019 stated that the

petitioner was never in possession of the land. After order dated

16.04.2019 was passed granting police protection, the petitioner along

with 50 police persons and 100 other persons forcefully entered into

the suit property. Thus, the respondents sought vacation of the interim

order dated 16.04.2019. This Court, vide order dated 30.09.2019,

directed both the parties to maintain status quo.

7. Reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner refuting the allegations

made in the counter affidavit.

8. IA(SR).No.47452 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner to place on

record additional material papers. In the affidavit it is stated that the

respondents have entered into the land of the petitioner and have

physically assaulted them. The petitioners have lodged complaints

before the police and FIR.Nos.126, 136 and 138 of 2019 were

registered on 20.08.2019, 21.09.2019 and 22.09.2019 respectively.

It is further stated that the respondents have forcefully entered into

the land of the petitioner, removed the fencing poles and damaged the

property to the extent of about Rs.80,000/-. Later, there was again

highhanded action by the respondents and complaints were lodged by

the petitioner vide FIRs.No.11 of 2020, 43 of 2020 and 28 of 2021.

In spite of multiple FIRs registered against the respondents, they are

continuing with their highhanded action and they are entering into the

land of the petitioner. The respondents filed WP.No.19333 of 2019

directing police not to interfere with the suit schedule property.

The said writ petition has been filed without brining to the notice of the

court, the interim order dated 16.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2017.

It is further stated that on 02.08.2021, when the petitioner and her

husband were ploughing the land, the respondents No.2 and 3 entered

into the land with a pre-planned mindset to kill the petitioner and her

husband with iron rods and sticks. Both of them were seriously injured

and her husband became unconscious and he was admitted in hospital

and had to undergo surgery on 05.08.2021. It is submitted that the

respondents are willfully violating the orders of the Court.

9. The copies of FIRs, orders passed by this Court in WP.No.19333

of 2019 dated 09.09.2019, judgments of this Court in GAMPALA

ANTHAIAH v. KASALA VENKTA REDDY (2014 (2) ALD 281);

SATYANARAYANA TIWARI v. SHO, PS SANTOSHNAGAR (AIR 1982 AP

394); A. BHARATHI v. STATE OF TELANGANA (2017 (1) ALD 503);

SAMA JANA REDDY @ JANI v. MUPPA NARSIMHA REDDY (2017 (2)

ALD 584) and KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD. v. STATION HOUSE

OFFICER, MADHAPUR PS, CYBERABAD, are filed along with the

aforesaid application for receiving the same as additional evidence.

10. Heard Mr. Bommineni Vivekananda, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel,

appearing for the respondents.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the injunction

order is subsisting and still in force. Hence, the petitioners are entitled

for grant of police protection. He relied on the aforesaid judgments.

12. Learned senior counsel for the respondents submitted that on

consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court

below dismissed IA.No.181 of 2016 as the petitioner has not made out

any case for grant of police protection.

13. In the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, it was consistently held by this Court that police aid can be

granted for enforcing injunction orders. However, this Court is of the

opinion that grant of police aid for implementing injunction order

cannot be as a matter of right, unless a case is made out. In the

affidavit averments in IA.No.181 of 2016, there is no specific assertion

by the petitioner that the respondents have indulged in such acts,

which would necessitate granting police aid. No doubt, the

respondents, having suffered injunction order, are still asserting that

they are in possession of the property and the same is not permissible.

However, the order granting police aid cannot be passed casually

merely because the party comes before the Court alleging violation of

injunction orders, unless and until the petitioner makes out a case that

the respondents are acting in a highhanded manner or creating a law

and order problem, thereby, disobeying the orders in IA.No.281 of

2014. Further, it needs to be noted that the documents, which are

filed by the petitioner in IA(SR).No.47452 of 2021 as additional

evidence relate to subsequent incidents, which include several FIRs

lodged by the petitioner and the latest one being FIR.No.121 of 2021

dated 02.08.2021. These alleged incidents took place during the

pendency of this revision and not part of the record before the trial

Court.

14. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that it

would be appropriate to balance the situation by giving reasonable

opportunity to both the parties to effectively put forth their claims.

Accordingly, the order dated 30.11.2016 passed in IA.No.181 of 2016

is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below on the

following terms:

a) The order dated 30.11.2016 passed in IA.No.181 of 2016 stands set aside.

b) The petitioner is permitted to file better affidavit in IA.No.181 of 2016.

c) The additional documents filed by the petitioner in IA(SR).No.47452 of 2021 shall be taken on record by the Court below.

d) The respondents shall be given reasonable opportunity to file counter to the better affidavit to be filed by the petitioner.

e) The Court below shall take into consideration the judgments of this Court referred to paragraph 9 above and other judgments if any cited by the parties and additional documents filed by the petitioner along with the averments in the better affidavit and pass orders either granting or refusing police aid to the petitioner.

f) The petitioner is given liberty to file an application for granting interim police protection as she had the benefit of interim order passed by this Court right from 16.04.2019.

15. With above observations, the civil revision petition is disposed

of. The Court below shall dispose of the main application in IA.No.181

of 2016 filed by the petitioner, within a period of two (2) months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J November 29, 2021 DSK