Telangana High Court
Bhukya Bhadri vs Dhandamudi Laxminarayana on 19 September, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3464 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 10.08.2023 in I.A.No.406 of 2021 in O.S.No.406 of 2021 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam.
2. Respondents No.1 and 2 herein have filed an application vide I.A.No.406 of 2021 in O.S.No.406 of 2021, against the petitioner and respondent No.3, seeking to grant temporary injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides, allowed the application granting temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the said Order respondent No.1 therein preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that no reasons were assigned by the respondents for grant of temporary injunction and the documents filed by the petitioner herein were not considered by the trial Court. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court. 2
4. Initially, respondents No.1 and 2 have filed a suit vide O.S.No.406 of 2021, for permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondent No.3 restraining them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Respondents No.1 and 2 are brothers and they stated that they are absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property measuring an extent of Acs.9-00 gts in Sy.No.137/2A/1/3, situated at Chunchupally Village and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District and the said property was the ancestral property. Their father by name Dandamudi Seetharamaih purchased the said property in the sale auction on 21.02.1970. Thereafter, they succeeded the suit schedule property as successors and their names were also incorporated in the revenue records as pattedars and possessors of the suit schedule property and the Tahsildar, Chunchupally had issued E-Passbook and Katha in their favour. They also obtained pahani details up to 2010 to 2021 under R.T.I act and adangals were also issued in their favour and they were growing crop in the suit schedule property as absolute pattedars and possessors, but the petitioner and respondent No.3 made an effort to trespass into the suit schedule property. Petitioner and respondent No.3 interfered with their peaceful possession on 3 20.03.2021 and tried to dispossess them, as such they filed the suit for permanent injunction.
5. Petitioner herein had filed the written statement denying all the allegations and stated that she is a tribal woman aged about 80 years and her husband died long back and residing in the Chunchupally Thanda, as such Government gave assignment patta in the year 1985 in Sy.No.137/13 measuring an extent of Acs.4-19 gts and it was surveyed and demarcated. From then onwards she was cultivating the said land by raising various crops and she was maintaining herself and her family with the income of the agricultural proceeds. Government has also issued assignment certificate long back, as such she took loans for agricultural purposes from the Government banks i.e., SBH and APGVP Banks and also repaying the loans regularly. She was also getting Rythu Bhandu scheme from the Telangana Government. She was in continuous possession from 1985 onwards and E-Passbook was issued in her favour and her name was entered in all revenue records. She has filed pahanies nakals and other documents given by the Revenue Department before the Court.
4
6. Petitioner further stated that when the father of respondents No.1 and 2 tried to obstruct her in cultivating the land assigned to her, she filed a suit vide O.S.No.463 of 2010 and during the pendency of the said suit, she has filed I.A.No.505 of 2010, for temporary injunction and the trial Court has granted Status-Quo. Subsequently, the matter was transferred to the Agent to Government Court as per the Supreme Court ruling. The District Collector had dismissed the suit prior to trial stating that "Court has no jurisdiction as per assignment policy to Government as per G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue Department dated 25.07.1958, POT Act, 1977 and Government Grants Act, 1895".
7. Petitioner belongs to tribal community. She was cultivating the land from 1985 onwards to till today and the said land was assigned vide proceedings No.Rc.B/3016/2009, dated 09.07.2010 and the Mandal Surveyor, Revenue Inspector- II of Kothagudem Mandal and V.R.O, Chunchupally village conducted panchanama on 06.08.2010 and confirmed her physical possession of the land duly fixing the boundary stones and incorporated her name in the revenue records including amended Sethwar. She was issued with pattedar passbook and title deeds in accordance with law and Telangana Government 5 has also issued e-passbook. The said land was re-surveyed in recent Samagra Survey conducted by the revenue officials and issued digital e-passbook bearing No.T27090010083 and Katha No.124. She has also availed small farmer's welfare scheme of the Government as owner of the land measuring an extent of Acs.4-19 gts. The survey team has also surveyed and demarcated the land and issued map with measurements of the land of petitioner along with panchanama and Asal Sethwar file No.H6/845/1986 and thus she was in continuous possession of the suit land since 1985.
8. Petitioner stated that respondents No.1 and 2 belong to forward caste (Kamma) i.e., Non-Tribal community and they are employees. Without having any right over the land, they occupied the property by saying that Tahsildar, Kothagudem and R.D.O, Kothagudem, sold the suit property in public auction on 21.02.1974, for realization of Government dues and issued sale certificate vide No.E-2174/74, dated 03.09.1974, without mentioning the boundaries of the said land. She also stated that even Government officials cannot sell the properties, which are in scheduled areas to the Non-Tribal community. The land was situated within the Agency Area and the Agency Laws i.e., 1/59 and 1/69, Regulation are in force. The father of 6 respondents No.1 and 2 purchased the land to an extent of Acs.20-00 gts, but the pahanies, pattedar passbooks and title deeds were restricted to Acs.18-00 gts only. She also stated that this Court in W.P.M.P.No.30746 of 2010 in W.P.No.24016 of 2010, held that "pending further orders, the defendant No.1 shall not be dispossessed from the above mentioned land on the strength of impugned orders". Respondents No.1 and 2 have not taken steps to bring L.R's on record after the death of their father within stipulated time. She further stated that she raised iron fencing along with cement poles around her land and also raising crops regularly. The suit schedule property and her property were quite different and belong to separate survey numbers and boundaries were also given by the Tahsildar, Kothagudem. She was the boundary holder of the southern and western side of the suit schedule property, but respondents No.1 and 2 intentionally did not mention her as adjacent boundary holder.
9. During the pendency of the said suit, respondents No.1 and 2 have filed an application for grant of temporary injunction. Admittedly, the land is in agency area and the petitioner herein belongs to tribal community, whereas respondents No.1 and 2 belong to non-tribal community. 7 Petitioner stated that Government gave assignment Patta in her favour in the year 1985. The land was surveyed, demarcated and given to her, from then onwards she was cultivating the said land. Assignment Certificate was also issued in her favour long back. She has taken loan from Banks and also getting Rythu Bhandu scheme from the Telangana Government. She has filed the suit bearing No.463 of 2010 against the father of the respondents No.1 and 2 and also filed I.A.No.505 of 2010, for temporary injunction, in which Status-Quo order was issued, but the District Collector dismissed the said suit on the ground that Court has no jurisdiction as per assignment policy to Government as per G.O.Ms.No.1406, Revenue Department, dated 25.07.1958. It was further stated that Panchanama was conducted on 06.08.2010, in which her possession was confirmed and her name was mutated in the revenue records including Pattedar Passbook and title deeds and after re-surveying digital e-passbook and Khatha was also given to her. The case of the respondents No.1 and 2 is that their father purchased the suit property in auction on 21.02.1974, whereas petitioner stated that Government assigned the said land to her in the year 1985. She mainly contended that suit schedule property and her property are different and belongs to separate survey numbers. She is the southern and western boundary 8 holder of the suit schedule property. Perusal of the Pahanies filed by the petitioner shows that land was assigned to her and it is an assigned land. Admittedly, petitioner belongs to tribal community. Therefore, this Court finds that the Order of the trial Court is not on proper appreciation of facts and is liable to be set aside.
10. In the result, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the Order of the trial Court dated 10.08.2023 passed in I.A.No.406 of 2021 in O.S.No.406 of 2021. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATE: 19.09.2024 tri