Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Heard Sri O. Manoher Reddy vs Heard Sri O. Manoher Reddy on 9 March, 2022
Author: C. Praveen Kumar
Bench: C. Praveen Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
I.A.Nos.01 & 02 of 2021
in
Appeal Suit No.295 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar) Heard Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant and Ms. S. Pranathi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri V. Vinod K. Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
2. The circumstances which, led to filing of the present I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2021 are, as under:-
(i) Originally, the petitioner/appellant/plaintiff filed O.S.No.82 of 2013 before the Court of IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati, seeking permanent injunction against the defendant Nos.1 to 3, restraining them, their men and servants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint 'A' schedule property in any manner; to declare that the plaintiff has got right, title possession and enjoyment in the 'B' schedule property; to grant mandatory injunction directing the defendant Nos.1 to 3 to remove structures etc., mentioned in 'B' schedule property.
(ii) During the course of proceedings, D.4 got himself added as party pursuant to the orders passed on 30.09.2016 in I.A.No.14 of 2015 and also made an application seeking amendments to the plaint.2
CPK, J & RNT, J I.A.Nos.01 & 02 of 2021 in A.S.No.295 of 2021
(iii) After the amendments, the case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the plaint schedule properties along with other properties by way of registered sale deeds from M. Satyanarayana Chetty and Balakrishna and ever since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Later on, he sold some extent and constructed a compound wall for the remaining extent of land.
(iv) While things stood thus, one K.R. Krishna Reddy approached the High Court at Hyderabad claiming ownership of the plaint schedule properties and other properties by filing a writ petition. The said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the Revenue Authorities to conduct an enquiry. The enquiry revealed that the petitioner/appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. The Inams Deputy Tahsildar, vide his Order dated 25.07.2006, issued Ryotwari Patta to the petitioner/appellant, which was challenged in an Appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupati. The same was dismissed on 23.06.2007. A Revision came to be preferred by M. Satyanarayana Chetty before the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, which was also dismissed on 12.11.2010. Thereafter, the plaintiff's name was entered in 10(1) account and Adangals.
(v) It is said that on 18.04.2013, D.1 to D.3 along with others attempted to occupy the plaint schedule properties, 3 CPK, J & RNT, J I.A.Nos.01 & 02 of 2021 in A.S.No.295 of 2021 which was resisted by the petitioner/appellant with the help of his watchman and neighbouring land owners. In view of the threat, the petitioner/appellant filed the suit and it is said that even after filing of the suit, the defendants encroached Ac.0.21 cents of land shown as 'B' schedule property and changed the physical structure of the property. Hence, the relief in the suit was amended seeking declaration and mandatory injunction for plaint 'B' schedule property.
3. D.1 filed Written Statement, which was adopted by D.2 and D.3. It is stated that in the Land Acquisition proceedings, M.R.O. submitted the proposals to the Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the land in Sy.No.255/1, in an extent of Ac.5.16 cents, is classified as Patta Wet land, in the name of Balakrishna Pillai, C. Venkatrama Naidu and T. Rajaram and no permanent structures are shown in Form No.5 Draught Declaration. The name of defendants' vendor was referred to as one of the pattadars. It is stated that Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Chittoor in S.R.No.105/86 to 107/86 in IDT 1/83, dated 29.05.1986 issued Ryotwari Patta in favour of T. Rajaram and another. After the death of T. Rajaram, his legal heirs sold Ac.0.21 cents in Survey No.255/1 of Tiruchanur Village in favour of Jilakarra Surya Narayana under a Registered Sale Deed dated 19.01.2005 and delivered possession of the same.
4
CPK, J & RNT, J I.A.Nos.01 & 02 of 2021 in A.S.No.295 of 2021
(i) On 16.04.2012 itself, J. Surya Narayana executed General Power of Attorney in favour of D.1 for the remaining Ac.0.17 cents who inturn executed Registered Lees Deed in favour of D.2 for a period of five years and that D.2 is in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is further pleaded that the suit filed by the vendor of the plaintiff in O.S.No.113 of 1991 against the vendors of D.1 was dismissed and another suit vide O.S.No.114 of 1991 filed at the instance of the plaintiff was also dismissed. Having regard to the above, it is stated that the plaintiff has no right over the said land.
4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence advanced, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs against D.1 to D.3.
5. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner/appellant filed the present appeal, along with I.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking grant of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the plaint 'B' schedule property in Survey No.255/1P3 admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.21 cents out of Ac.0.72 cents, I.A.No.2 of 2021 came to be filed seeking grant of injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the plaint 'A' schedule property in Survey No.255/1 (S.No.255/1P3 as per ROR admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.51 cents out of Ac.0.72 cents.
5
CPK, J & RNT, J I.A.Nos.01 & 02 of 2021 in A.S.No.295 of 2021
6. Sri O. Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant mainly submits that in view of the Ryotwari Patta in favour of the petitioner, which was confirmed in Appeal and Revision, the petitioner is entitled for an interim order at this stage. He further submits that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the issuance of Ryotwari Patta, when the same was adjudicated by a Competent Authority and the issue is pending before this Court in a Writ Petition. He further submits that in view of the fact that interim order was extended during the pendency of the trial, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as sought for.
7. On the other hand, Sri Vinod K. Reddy and Ms.S. Pranathi, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the same, contending that the vendors of the petitioner/appellant has lost the suits filed by them claiming right over the properties and as the petitioner steps into their shoes, he cannot get the very relief in this appeal as well. Having regard to the fact that the trial Court has dismissed the suit itself, the questioning of granting any relief in this appeal would not arise. It is further stated that issue relating to grant of Ryotwari patta is pending consideration before this Court and the same cannot be the basis to grant any relief.
6
CPK, J & RNT, J I.A.Nos.01 & 02 of 2021 in A.S.No.295 of 2021
8. A perusal of the material on record would show two things, firstly suit in O.S.No.82 of 2013 came to be filed for permanent injunction and later on, the prayer was amended for declaration of title for plaint 'B' schedule property and permanent injunction for plaint 'A' schedule property. The lands are Inam lands, as such, it was declared under Section 3(3) of the A.P. (A.A.) Inams (Abolition and Conversion in to Ryotwari) Act, 1956. The petitioner/appellant is said to have purchased the land from one M. Satyanarayana Chetty who inturn purchased from one K.R. Krishna Reddy. The said K.R. Krishna Reddy filed O.S.No.89 of 1974 for declaration of title and permanent injunction, which was dismissed. He filed Appeal vide A.S.No.93 of 1990 was also dismissed. M. Satyanarayana Chetty also filed a suit, for permanent injunction through his General Power of Attorney Pandurangan, who is the appellant herein, in O.S.No.114 of 1991. In the said suit, I.A.No.671 of 1991 came to be filed for temporary injunction. Both the suits and I.As were dismissed.
9. It is also to be noted here that the petitioner/appellant also filed O.S.No.113 of 1991 for permanent injunction which was also dismissed with costs. Further, the Writ Petition No.7048 of 1991 came to be filed by one M. Satyanarayana Chetty seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus and a 7 CPK, J & RNT, J I.A.Nos.01 & 02 of 2021 in A.S.No.295 of 2021 direction to Inams Deputy Tahsildar, for grant of patta to the said lands, which was also dismissed.
10. As against the above proceedings, there is an order passed by Inams Deputy Tahsildar in the Inams Enquiry, wherein Ryotwari Patta was granted to the petitioner/appellant on 06.12.1980 and 25.07.2006. D.4 challenged the order in Appeal and then in Revision unsuccessfully. Thereafter, W.P.No.2698 of 2011 came to be filed challenging the order of the Revisional Authority along with the said Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.3341 of 2011 came to be filed seeking stay. The said Writ Petition was filed by A.S. Gurrappa, who is D.4 herein. In the said Writ Petition, the petitioner herein is also a party. Vide an order, dated 09.02.2011, this Court directed the parties to maintain status-quo with regard to the nature of the property and the said Writ Petition is pending for consideration.
11. At this stage, it is also to be noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon an order passed in I.A.No.96 of 2013 pending disposal of the suit whereby there was an order of interim injunction in his favour. A perusal of the order, dated 26.04.2013 passed in I.A.No.96 of 2013 would show that the Court after considering the arguments advanced held that the petitioner is the owner of petition schedule property, Ryotwari Patta and 10(1) Adangal filed by 8 CPK, J & RNT, J I.A.Nos.01 & 02 of 2021 in A.S.No.295 of 2021 the petitioner would also prove that the petition schedule property belong to the petitioner and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The Court felt that the order of injunction would defeat the delay, hence notice to respondents was dispensed with and an interim injunction against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 came to be passed. A perusal of the interim order passed in the year 2013 should it was extended till April, 2013 and thereafter there is no material to show any extension being granted. But, it is urged that on 17.08.2017, the Court closed the I.A.No.96 of 2013 as the parties were not showing any interest.
12. From the above, it is clear that as against the orders passed in O.S.No.66 of 2006, and other suits including the present O.S., there is a Ryotwari Patta granted by Inams Deputy Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner, which was unsuccessful, challenged in Appeal and Revision by D.4 and the Writ Petition filed by D.4 with regard to grant of Ryotwari Patta is pending before the High Court. In the Writ Petition No.2698 of 2011, the parties were directed to maintain status-quo. The said order reads as under:-
"Post after four weeks.
In the mean time the parties are directed to maintain status-quo with regard to the nature of the property."9
CPK, J & RNT, J I.A.Nos.01 & 02 of 2021 in A.S.No.295 of 2021
13. In the above said Writ Petition, the interim prayer was to direct the respondents 5 to 11 therein not to alienate or create any third party interest or change the nature of property over the subject land i.e., Ac.17.82 cents in Sy.No.254/2 to 254/5, 255/1 and 256/1 of Tiruchanuru Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, pursuant to the orders passed by Inams Deputy Tahsildar, which was confirmed by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Commissioner Appeals. Further, the prayer in the Writ Petition would indicate that the respondent No.5 therein i.e., the petitioner herein is in possession of the property.
14. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that issuance of Ryotwari Patta, amounts to grant of title cannot be gone into in a different proceedings. As the arguments and order passed in W.P.No.2698 of 2011, which is pending before the High Court, we feel that ends of justice would be met, if the parties are directed to maintain status- quo in respect of the property in dispute, till further orders. Hence, status-quo as on today to be maintained in all respects with regard to the property as sought for in these two I.As.
10
CPK, J & RNT, J I.A.Nos.01 & 02 of 2021 in A.S.No.295 of 2021
15. With the above observations, the I.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2021 are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________________ JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR _______________________________ JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI Date:09.03.2022.
MS 11 CPK, J & RNT, J I.A.Nos.01 & 02 of 2021 in A.S.No.295 of 2021 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI I.A.Nos.01 & 02 of 2021 in Appeal Suit No.295 of 2021 (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar) Date:09.03.2022 MS