Boddupally Venkanna And Another vs The State Of Telangana And 5 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 2703 Tel

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

                 WRIT PETITION No.23219 of 2020
ORDER:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned

Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 4, the

learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.5, and

Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, the learned counsel for respondent

No.5.

This writ petition is filed challenging the Notices vide

Roc.No.B/392/2020 dated 14.08.2020, Roc.No.B/392/2020 dated

29.08.2020 and RocNo.B/392/2020 dated 27.11.2020, issued by

respondent No.4 - the Tahsildar, Danthalapally, by exceeding his

jurisdiction and imposing penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on the petitioner

No.1, during pendency of O.S.No.71 of 2020 on the file of the Junior

Civil Judge, Thorrur.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the

unofficial respondent has approached the Civil Court and filed the

above suit i.e., O.S.No.71 of 2020 for injunction and the same is

pending, and therefore, issuance of the impugned notices by the

respondent No.4 are without jurisdiction. Further, he has stated that

the Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate the rights of the parties,

more particularly, when Civil Court is already seized of the matter.

In support of the said contentions, the learned counsel has relied on

the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram

Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P1 and the judgment rendered by a

Division Bench of this Court in Thota Venkat Reddy v. Polamoni

Jangaiah Golla Jangaiah2.

Per contra, Sri Gudi Madhusudhan Reddy, the learned

counsel for respondent No.6, has vehemently argued that the

petitioners, without having any semblance of right, are trying to

interfere with the possession of respondent No.6, and therefore, the

official respondents were constrained to intervene and issue notices

to the petitioners. In fact, by virtue of the impugned notices, the

respondent No.6 is also restrained from entering into the land.

Learned counsel has further sated that in the suit filed by the

respondent No.6, the Court below has passed an injunction order

against the petitioners.

When queried by this Court, the learned counsel for

respondent No.6 has fairly conceded that if there is any violation of

the injunction order granted by the Court below, the party is free to

avail necessary remedies before the very same Court under the

provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, on number

of occasions, has deprecated the practice of the Revenue Authorities

in interfering or meddling with the disputes of the private parties,

more particularly, when a civil litigation is pending between them in

competent Civil Court. It is only the competent Civil Court, which

[1985] 1 SCC 427

2020 (4) ALT 512 (DB) (TS)

has got the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate the civil rights of the

parties and pass necessary orders. Any order passed by the Civil

Court is binding on all the parties including the Revenue authorities

and other Government authorities. The authorities, under the guise

of law and order or any nuisance at the spot, can initiate

proceedings under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code or

any other provisions of law. When civil litigation is pending before

the Civil Court, the parties should be relegated to approach the Civil

Court for seeking appropriate remedy by filing appropriate petition.

In view of the same, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the

impugned notices and allow the writ petition.

Accordingly, the impugned notices are set aside and the writ

petition is allowed. The respondent authorities are directed not to

interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners as

well as the respondent No.6. It is needless to mention that if the

respondent No.6 has any grievance against the petitioners for

violation of the injunction order passed by the Court below, he is at

liberty to avail the remedies as available to him under law before the

Court below or any other appropriate forum.

The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________ A.ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date : 21.09.2021.

va