Uke Muktheswara Rao vs Mohammad Shabber Ahmad
2023 Latest Caselaw 191 Tel

                                    1
                                                                        Dr. GRR, J
                                                          CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022




            THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

     CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2717 OF 2022 & 2659 OF 2022

              and I.A. No.3 of 2022 in CRP No.2659 of 2022



COMMON ORDER:

       C.R.P. No.2717 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners-respondents-

defendants aggrieved by the injunction order, passed on merits, dated

24.11.2022 in I.A.No.354 of 2022 in O.S.No.365 of 2022 on the file of the

Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to

Government, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam.

C.R.P. No.2659 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners-respondents-

defendants aggrieved by the ex parte ad-interim injunction order dated

27.10.2022 in I.A.No.355 of 2022 in O.S.No.365 of 2022 on the file of the

Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to

Government, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam

2. The respondent in both the revision petitions is the plaintiff in

O.S.No.365 of 2022.

Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022

3. Since both the revision cases arise out of the same suit and the parties

also are same, both the revision cases are disposed of through this common

order.

4. The parties are herein after referred as arrayed before the trial court.

5. The case of the plaintiff was that he was the absolute owner, pattadar

and title holder of the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.15.04 gts.

situated in Pusugudem Village, Mulakalapalli Mandal of Bhadradri-

Kothagudem District. He got succeeded to the schedule property through his

father late Abdul Raheem who in turn acquired the same from his

predecessors in title. Since then, his family was in continuous possession and

enjoyment of the schedule land uninterruptedly. Their names were recorded

in the land records right from the date of acquisition i.e., prior to the years

1954-55. ROR Passbook and title deed followed by e-Pass Book bearing

No.T 27180020413 were issued in his name. He was getting raitu bandhu

amount in respect of the schedule land regularly. He got ploughed the

schedule land and sown green gram seeds on 24.10.2022. On the next day

i.e., on 25.10.2022, the respondents - defendants along with their men and

supporters illegally destroyed the barbed wire fencing and poles and

trespassed into the schedule land by using criminal force, spoiled the

cultivated land and made hurried attempts to put up tarpaulin tents with a

Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022

malafide intention to grab the possession of the schedule land from his hands.

They were making repeated attempts to dispossess him and were threatening

him with dire consequences taking advantage of their communal strength. As

part of their illegal activities, they attacked with deadly weapons on their

tractor driver, and tried to take away the lives of his family. Aggrieved by

their attempt, the tractor driver gave a complaint to the Station House Officer,

Mulakalapalli on 26.10.2022. Being an old aged person, he was not able to

resist the illegal activities of the respondents and gave complaint to the

Police, duly enclosing his land records. But the Police advised him to

approach the court since the dispute was civil in nature.

6. With a false intention to grab the schedule land from his hands, the

respondents repeatedly gave false complaints against him alleging that he had

no right over the schedule land and it was Forest or Government land.

Responding on their application, the District Collector & District Magistrate,

Bhadradri-Kothagudem District ordered for enquiry by the Tahsildar,

Mulakalapalli through endorsement dated 05.09.2022. In the said enquiry,

they submitted their explanation duly explaining their exclusive rights over

the schedule land. After verification, the Tahsildar, Mulakalapalli submitted

enquiry report to the District Collector on 07.09.2022 vide

R.C.No.B/410/2021 in which the Tahsildar clearly mentioned that the

Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022

petitioner's family was having exclusive rights and physical possession and

enjoyment over the suit schedule land.

7. Prior to that also the respondents - defendants and their men gave

another petition to the District Collector in Prajavani in

RC.No.BDRDC/E/2021/0080 on 04.10.2021 against the petitioner's family

members suspecting their title and right over the subject land. In the said

matter, the Tahsildar conducted detailed enquiry and confirmed the family

patta rights over their respective shares and about their title, rights and

records over the land and submitted to the District Collector vide his report in

R.C.No.B/410/2021 dated 08.10.2021.

8. With regard to the allegation of the respondents that the plaintiff and

his family members occupied reserve forest land in northern boundary also, a

joint inspection was conducted by the Revenue and Forest Department, on

application of his brother Shabber Ahmed on 09.04.2015. The concerned

forest and revenue officials conducted joint survey and field inspection and

reported on 07.05.2015 and 08.05.2015. Basing on the survey and inspection

reports, the then Tahsildar sent a letter to the Divisional Forest Officer,

Palvoncha vide R.C.No.468/2013, dated 12.05.2015 duly enclosing the field

map and survey details. As per the Joint Inspection, it was found that the

forest department persons encroached into their land by leaving their old

Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022

reserve line and boundary pillars. Accordingly, they were being ordered to

remove their new boundary pillars and advised to set back to their original

old boundary.

9. All the above reports and records would crystal clearly establish their

rights over the schedule land. The Station House Officer, Mulakalapalli

registered criminal complaints against the respondents vide FIR.No.132 of

2021 on 13.08.2021 under Sections 294(b), 506, 447 and 427 of IPC and FIR

in Crime No.136 of 2022 against the respondents on 26.10.2022, basing on

the complaint given by the plaintiff. Hence, the petitioner filed O.S. No.365

of 2022 along with I.A. Nos.354 of 2022 and 355 of 2022 under Rule 42 (a &

c) of Agency Rules, 1924 read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC with a

prayer to grant ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents or

persons claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the petitioner - plaintiff over the schedule land.

10. The trial court granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction as prayed for by

the petitioner - plaintiff in I.A. No.355 of 2022 by order dated 27.10.2022.

11. The respondent No.1 filed counter in I.A. No.354 of 2022 on behalf of

respondent Nos.2 to 6 also. He contended that the petitioner-plaintiff was not

in possession and enjoyment of the land in question as on the date of filing of

the suit. The entire land belonged to Government and the respondents were

Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022

in possession and enjoyment of the land in question by raising houses in the

said land and were living there. Suppressing the said aspects, the petitioner

obtained revenue record in his name without having any title or possession

over the land particularly in Survey No.241 in question which was a

Government Land. The title was vested with the government. If any person

obtained pattadar passbooks by fraudulently claiming the Government land,

the same was liable to be cancelled under Section 8 of the New Pattadar

Passbooks Act 9 of 2020 and they were taking steps to cancel the said

pattadar passbooks. Inspite of knowing all these things, the Tahsildar was

acting in favour of the petitioner. The Tahsildar was liable to be punished.

11.1. Taking undue advantage of the court orders dated 27.10.2022 passed in

I.A. No.355 of 2022, the Police were also acting beyond their powers. Under

the said circumstances, the respondents filed Writ Petition vide

W.P.No.40881 of 2022 questioning the arbitrary action of the Police and also

filed separate civil revision petitions to suspend the order dated 27.10.2022

passed by the trial court.

11.2 The petitioner filed the suit suppressing all the material facts,

managing the revenue authorities. It was settled law that for grant of

temporary injunction, 'possession follows title' and for grant of permanent

injunction 'title follows possession'. At any cost, the plaintiff was not having

Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022

any title over the suit schedule property which belonged to Government and

the respondents were in possession and enjoyment of the land in question.

The petitioner was claiming the land in Survey No.241 in question to an

extent of Ac.15.04gts, but the entire land in Survey No.241 belonged to

Government. The land available in the said survey was around 4000 acres.

The plaintiff was claiming which part of the property in Survey No.241 was

not clear. The plaintiff could approach the survey department to conduct the

survey and for demarcation of the land he was claiming. Without conducting

survey and without identifying the location of the property, the plaintiff

straightaway approached the court which was not maintainable. When the

identity of the property was suspicious, grant of temporary injunction in

favour of the plaintiff without having possession as on the date of filing of

the suit was not in accordance with law and prayed to dismiss the I.A.

12. On hearing both the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff and the

learned counsel for the respondents - defendants and on considering the

documents filed by both the parties, the trial court i.e., the Court of the Sub-

Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile

Court at Bhadrachalam granted interim injunction allowing the petition in

I.A.No.354 of 2022 restraining the respondents and their agents, servants,

henchmen on their behalf from interfering with the physical possession and

Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022

enjoyment of the petitioner over the schedule land till final disposal of the

suit by order dated 24.11.2022.

13. Challenging the ex-parte ad-interim injunction order dated 27.10.2022

in I.A. No.355 of 2022, the respondents - defendants filed Civil Revision

Petition No.2659 of 2022 contending that the order under revision was a non-

speaking order, as per Order 39 rule 3 proviso of CPC, the ex-parte

injunction must give reasons, merely granting ex-parte temporary injunction

order was liable to be set aside in view of the order laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Shiv Kumar Chadha Etc. Etc v. Municipal Corporation Of

Delhi1.

14. Challenging the order dated 24.11.2022 in I.A.No.354 of 2022 in

O.S.No.365 of 2022, the respondents - defendants preferred Civil Revision

Petition No.2717 of 2022 contending that the order under revision was liable

to be set aside on the ground that the trial court failed to mark the documents

as per the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in T. Bhoopal

Reddy and another v. K.R. Lakshmi Bai and another 2 and in similar

judgments reported in R.Parijatham and Ors Vs. M.Kameshwari & Ors3

and in Mahaveer Infoway Ltd., Hyderabad and another v. Tech Minfy

1993 (3) SCC 161

1998 (1) ALD 770 DB

2017 (5) ALD 348

Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022

Info Solutions Llp, Hyderabad and another4. The order under revision

would indicate that the orders were passed by the trial court basing on the

report submitted by the Inspector of Police dated 21.11.2022. Since the said

injunction order was passed basing on the reports, the same was liable to be

rejected.

15. He further submitted that the petitioner had also filed I.A.No.355 of

2022 seeking urgent orders of ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Against the

said orders, the respondents filed C.R.P.No.2659 of 2022 and the Court

granted status quo order on 23.11.2022. I.A.No.354 of 2022 was filed on

26.10.2022, but without passing orders in the said I.A., the trial court after

receipt of the directions from this Court passed in C.R.P.No.2659 of 2022

dated 23.11.2022, passed the present order under revision with a malafide

intention to get over from the orders passed by this Court. The Kasra Pahani

would show that the entire land in Survey No.241 was a Government Land

and there was no sub-division and there was no supplementary Sethwar

issued in the said survey number. The plaintiff manipulated the revenue

record and obtained pattadar passbook and wanted to grab the land from the

possession of the tribals in question. The aspect would reveal from the

information obtained by way of RTI application from the Tahsildar dated

07.09.2022. The said information would indicate that the plantiff and his

2017 (5) ALD 351 (DB)

Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022

family members were the occupants and they were cultivating the land at

some other place other than the land in Survey No.241. Without conducting

survey, the authorities could not say that the plaintiff was residing in which

survey number. The said report dated 07.09.2022 filed by the plaintiff would

clearly indicate that without conducting survey of the land, the location of the

plaintiff's land could not be determined. On the other hand, as on the date of

filing of the suit, the plaintiff was not in possession and enjoyment of the

land in question. The said aspect was revealed from the petition in

I.A.No.417 of 2022 filed by the plaintiff on 21.11.2022 seeking for

disobedience of the orders. At present, the defendants erected tents in the

schedule property. Therefore, as on the date of passing of status quo orders

by this Court dated 23.11.2022, the respondents have erected tents in the

schedule land and the same was recognized by the plaintiff in I.A.No.417 of

2022. The Plaintiff with the help of muscle and political power filed false

complaints against the respondents before the Police. The Police registered

the same as Crime No.132 of 2022. Basing on the said documents, the

plaintiff filed O.S.No.362 of 2022 for permanent injunction and obtained

temporary injunction in I.A.No.354 of 2022 dated 24.11.2022. The trial

court without considering all the said aspects, mechanically passed the orders

under revision. The revision petitioners were residing in an agency area.

They were all Scheduled Tribes. The land in question was also situated in

Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022

agency area and the Schedule Tribe people were entitled to get patta in the

lands which were in their possession. The plaintiff was a non-tribe and was

not entitled for grant of patta, since the land in question belonged to

Government. At any cost, the plaintiff was not in possession and enjoyment

over the land in question, as such, he was not entitled to get any injunction

order and prayed to allow the civil revision petitions.

16. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners-defendants and

the learned counsel for the respondent - plaintiff in both the revision cases.

17. Perused the impugned orders. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate

and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam,

on considering the pleadings and the documents filed by both the parties

observed that the respondents - defendants in their representations to the

District Collector, Bhadradri-Kothagudem admitted the physical possession

and enjoyment of the petitioner-plaintiff over the schedule land since

decades. He also observed that the respondents-defendants were trespassers

and erected tents. The document filed by the respondents i.e., the Sethwar

marked in Survey No.241/2, was not concerned with the schedule land as the

schedule land was in Survey No.241/1. He also noted that out of the total

extent of land in Survey No.241 to an extent of 3424.36 guntas, there was a

patta land to an extent of 40 acres and the petitioner-plaintiff's land was

Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022

within the patta land as per the report of the Tahsildar, Mulakalapalli Mandal

and survey demarcation and e-pattadar pass book and DD bearing

No.T27180020413 in Survey No.241 of 2022 of Pusugudem Village of

Mulakalapalli Mandal. He also considered the series of FIRs and the

newspaper clippings and the report of Sub-Inspector of Police of

Mulakalapalli P.S. dated 22.11.2022 informing about the respondents -

defendants continuous illegal activities and their disobedience, criminal

trespass / breach of trust inspite of their efforts to implement court orders in

I.A.No.355 of 2022 in O.S.No.365 of 2022 dated 27.10.2022 and Police

Protection Order in I.A.No.395 of 2022 in O.S.No.365 of 2022 dated

10.11.2022.

18. The petitioner-plaintiff had filed online pahanies pertaining to the

years 2012, 2014 and 2015, copy of e-pattadar passbook and DD bearing No.

T27180020413 and copies of Dharani extract in proof of his possession over

the schedule property. The reports of the Tahsildar dated 08.10.2021,

07.09.2022 also would disclose that the petitioner - plaintiff was in

possession of the schedule property. The contention of the respondents -

defendants was that the entire land in Survey No.241 belonged to

Government and the petitioner - plaintiff occupied the Government Land. If

the petitioner - plaintiff had encroached the Government land, necessary

Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022

action would be taken by the Government for getting him vacated from the

said land. The documents filed by the petitioner would disclose that the

petitioner and his ancestors were in possession of petition schedule property

since 1954-55. The courts need to protect the persons in possession of the

property, but not the ones who were anticipating to get their rights. Even

though, the revision petitioners - respondents were Scheduled Tribes and

were residing in the agency area, they cannot occupy the private patta lands

and claim possession contending that the land belonged to Government and

forcibly oust the petitioner-plaintiff from the possession of the property.

19. No single document was filed by the revision petitioners - respondents

in proof of their possession over the schedule property.

20. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the revision

petitioners - respondents - defendants in CRP No.2659 of 2022 that the order

dated 27.10.2022 granting ex-parte ad-interim injunction was a non-speaking

order, the same was suspended. As the learned counsel for the revision

petitioner submitted that there were houses in the schedule property and the

respondents were trying to evict the petitioner from the said houses, a 'status

quo' order was granted on 23.11.2022 in I.A.No.2 of 2022 in C.R.P.No.2659

of 2022. But, on considering the merits of the case, it is considered fit to

vacate the 'status quo' order dated 23.11.2022 and to dismiss the Civil

Dr. GRR, J CRP_2659 AND 2717_2022

Revision Petition No.2659 of 2022. Accordingly, I.A. No.3 of 2022 is

allowed.

21. This Court does not find any illegality in the order dated 24.11.2022 in

I.A .No.354 of 2022 in O.S. No.365 of 2022 passed by the trial court in

granting injunction to the petitioner - plantiff restraining the respondents

from interfering with their possession over the schedule property.

22. In the result, both the Civil Revision Petition Nos.2717 of 2022 and

2659 of 2022 are dismissed. The order dated 24.11.2022 in I.A.No.354 of

2022 in O.S.No.365 of 2022 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special

Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, is confirmed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J

January 11, 2023

Note:

Furnish C.C. today.

B.O.

nsk.