Between :-
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA C.M.A.No.838 of 2007 1st July, 2010 Ch.Koteshwara Rao and another .. Appellants And The M.R.O., Jangareddigudem And another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA C.M.A.No.838 of 2007 JUDGMENT:-
Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the appellants and the learned A.G.P. for Arbitration representing respondents.
2. This C.M.A. is filed as against an order made in I.A.No.2204/2004 in A.S.No.262/2004 on the file of the II-Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. On 30-10-2007 this Court granted interim injunction as prayed for for a limited period of six weeks and the same is being extended from time to time, but however the interim order was not extended subsequent to 31-1-2008.
3. Sri Phani Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the as would maintain that being aggrieved of the erroneous findings relating to title made by the Trial Court in O.S.No.80/96 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,Kovvur preferred appeal A.S.No.262/2004 and also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for ad interim injunction pending disposal of the appeal. The Counsel also would maintain that the learned Judge after formulating the point for consideration dismissed the application mainly on the ground that the Government is the true owner and as against the true owner injunction cannot be granted. The learned Counsel would maintain that when the findings relating to the title had been challenged before the Appellate Court, on the self- same ground negativing the relief during the pendency of the appeal may not be just and proper.
4. On the contrary, the learned A.G.P. for Arbitration would maintain that the respondents being the real owners, there cannot be a Decree for perpetual injunction as against such true owners, when that being so, the learned Judge is well justified in refusing the relief of interim injunction during the pendency of the appeal.
5. Heard the Counsel.
6. In the light of the submissions made by the Counsel on record, the following points arise for consideration:-
1) Whether the negativing of the relief of interim injunction by the learned II-Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru during the pendency of the appeal be confirmed or to be disturbed in the facts and circumstances of the case?
2) If so, to what relief the parties would be entitled to?
7. Point No.1:- The parties hereinafter would be referred to as shown in I.A.No.2204/2004 in A.S.No.262/2004 on the file of the II- Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru for the purpose of convenience.
8. The said application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for ad- interim injunction restraining the respondents, their men etc., from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule items 1 and 2 pending disposal of the main appeal and pass such other suitable orders. The M.R.O., Jangareddygudem and the State represented by its District Collector, West Godavari District are the respondents.
9. The averments made in the affidavit are as hereunder:-
“It is stated that the Grounds of Appeal to be read as part and parcel of the affidavit. Both the petitioners filed suit O.S.No.80/96 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur for declaration and that the notice issued by the respondents as illegal or arbitrary and to declare him that petitioner No.1 is the absolute owner of the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and that the petitioner No.2 is the absolute owner of the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property and also for consequential relief of permanent injunction against the respondents. He purchased item No.1 of the plaint schedule property under registered sale deed dated 29-1-67 and the 2nd petitioner purchased item No.2 of the plaint schedule property under registered sale deed dt.29-12-66. Since the date of purchase the plaint schedule items 1 and 2 are in their possession and enjoyment with absolute rights and title. Their names are also noted in the revenue records and they have been regularly paid land revenue to the Government. As such, the plaint schedule items 1 and 2 have been in their uninterrupted peaceful possession and enjoyment since more than 35 years to the knowledge of the Villagers including the respondents. In the year 1988 the 1st respondent again issued notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act in respect of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property to them. The petitioners gave detailed explanation to the respondents and in pursuance of their explanation, the respondents dropped their action against the petitioners in respect of the plaint schedule property. But again in the year 1994, at the instance of one Rajarao and others, the 1st respondent issued a notice and made efforts to dispossess the petitioners from the plaint schedule property. Under those circumstances, the petitioners filed the above said suit. But the lower Court without considering their possession and enjoyment and also documents, erroneously dismissed the suit. Taking advantage of the dismissal of the suit, the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from the plaint schedule property, which will cause irreparable loss and injury to them.”
10. The 1st respondent filed counter wherein it was averred that the lands in R.S.No.192 and 195 of the Jangareddigudem are not private lands as alleged by the petitioners. But they are Government properties. They are classified as village site poramboke and donka poramboke respectively and the title of the lands vests in the Government. The petitioners encroached these lands and they are cultivating the lands with dry crops. The village site and donka poramboke are intended for dwelling houses and pathway and were booked in the B-Memorandum also. On 23-1-88, notices were also served under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act 3 of 1905, but the encroachers had not vacated encroachments. Instead of vacating the lands, the petitioners filed W.P.No.1203/88 before the High Court against the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jangareddigudem stating that the eviction notice issued to them is illegal under the provisions of Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act does not apply to them as they purchased the land under registered sale deeds dt.29-1-67 and 29-12-
66. But the said proceedings before the High Court, Government contested that the land encroached by the petitioners in R.S.No.195 is the village site poramboke by virtue of its classification and it is intended for assessment as house sites and R.S.No.192 is a donka poramboke intended for pathway and thus the title over the lands vests with the Government. The said petition was disposed of by giving the direction to the respondent to consider the explanation given by the petitioners and after giving them opportunity before taking a decision to order eviction or any other order, and with a further direction that the plaintiffs should not be evicted till the petitioners were given an opportunity to submit their explanation. Accordingly, this respondent issued notices to the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be evicted from the plaint schedule lands. Having received the said notices, the petitioners neither gave any documentary evidence nor adduce oral evidence except sending the representation that they purchased the lands under the above said two sale deeds. No action taken in pursuance of such notice. Again in the year 1994, this respondent at the instance of Bhogavalli Rajarao and others tried to lay a puntha across the suit schedule property. Then the 1st petitioner filed a suit against this respondent and others in O.S.No.33/94 in Kovvur. The petitioners also filed Writ Petition No.6922/95 to issue orders restraining the respondents from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the lands. The High Court gave a direction to the Mandal Revenue Officer to consider the issue by giving opportunity to the petitioners. While so, the MRO issued a notice in R.O.C.No.917/95 stating that it had decided to dispossess the petitioners from the suit schedule property. The case of the petitioners that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of Cheela Adiyya and Mandapalli China Venkata Ramudu. The said persons had no title over the plaint schedule lands nor they were in possession of those lands. Therefore, the so-called sales under title deeds dt.29- 12-65 and 29-1-67 are not valid under law.
11. The learned Judge having formulated the point for consideration at para 4 recorded reasons at para 5 and ultimately dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.M.A. had been preferred. As already aforesaid, initially this Court granted interim injunction for a limited period which being extended from time to time and may be for certain reasons which had been explained by Sri Phani Kumar, the same was not subsequently extended. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the interim injunction granted by this Court also had been operative for sufficiently a long time. The principal ground on which the relief had been negatived by the Appellate Court as can be seen from the reasons recorded at para 5, findings had been recorded by the Trial Court relating to title and since the MRO, Jangareddigudem and the District Collector, West Godavari District being the owners of the property, there cannot be interim injunction as against such true owners. There cannot be any quarrel relating to this proposition. But however it may be that a finding had been recorded by the Trial Court relating to title to the property but aggrieved by the said findings only the appeal had been preferred and the appeal A.S.No.262/2004 on the file of the II-Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, is pending disposal. It is needless to say that this appeal is of the year 2004 and the same can be disposed of at an early date.
12. In the light of the same, this Court is inclined to dispose of the C.M.A. directing both the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the appeal A.S.No.262/2004 on the file of the II-Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru and let the learned Judge make an endeavour to dispose of the appeal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.
13. Point No.2:- In the light of what had been stated above, the C.M.A. is partly allowed to the said extent indicated above directing the parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the appeal A.S.No.262/2004 on the file of the II-Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru and let the learned Judge dispose of the appeal itself within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs.
Justice P.S.Narayana 1st July, 2010 smr