Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bandi Anasuyamma vs State Of Kerala And on 30 January, 2025
APHC010047992025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [0]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 2414/2025
Between:
1. BANDI ANASUYAMMA, W/O. ANJENEYULIU, AGED ABOUT 70
YEARS, OCC PRIVATE, R/O.D.NO.62, 3RD FLOR, SOUTH SIDE
NAGASANDRA CIRCLE, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE, SOUTH
BANGALORE.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAMAYYA DISTRICT,
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADANAPALLE, ANAMAYYA
DISTRICT.
4. THE THASILDHAR, MADANAPALLE MANDAL, ANAMAYYA DIST,
5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, STAMPS AND REGISTRATIONS,
RAYACHOTI, ANAMAYYA DISTRICT.
6. THE SUBREGISTRAR, MADANAPALLE, ANAMAYYA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
21. RAMINENI SATISH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following:
Heard Sri R. Satish Babu, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Land Acquisition, Stamps & Registration.
2. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as follows:
".....to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in a nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing market value certificate and not receiving the documents in respect of the lands of the petitioner in R.Sy.No.141/A2A to an extent of Ac.1.60 cents and in R.Sy.No.141/A2E to an extent of Ac.0.60 cents, Pothapolu village, Madanapalle Mandal as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions under Registration Act and consequently direct the respondents to receive and process the documents in respect of the lands situated in R.Sy.No. 141/A2A to an extent of Ac.1.60 cents and in R.Sy.No.141/A2E to an extent of Ac.0.60 cents, Pothabolu village, Madanapalle Mandal, as per rules contemplated...."
3. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that, one Sri R. Manjunatha Reddy had filed a Suit along with two other Plaintiffs on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle in O.S.No.295 of 2023 seeking relief of Permanent Injunction in respect of Suit Schedule Property in Sy.No.141/A2A of an extent of Ac.1.60 cents and in Sy.No.141/A2E of an extent of Ac.0.60 cents, Pothabolu village, Madanapalle Mandal. Writ Petitioner herein is the sole Defendant in the said Suit.
4. The Plaintiffs in O.S.No.295 of 2023 have filed I.A.No.652 of 2023 seeking Interim Injunction against the Defendant (Writ Petitioner herein) not to alienate the Suit Schedule Property. Vide, Order dated 19.04.2023, the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle was pleased to grant an Order of Interim Injunction. It is the submission of the learned Counsel that on 3 the strength of the Interim Injunction, the Official Respondents have placed the Suit Schedule Property in the Dispute Register. Subsequently, by an Order of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle, the Suit bearing O.S.No.295 of 2023 came to be „dismissed as not pressed‟, vide Order dated 10.01.2025 on account of an out of Court settlement/compromise between the parties.
5. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the certified copy of the Order has not been issued by the Court. He has placed on record the status on the web site indicating the nature of disposal as „DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED‟ on 10.01.2025 (Ex.P.4).
6. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that after the dismissal of the Suit as not being pressed on 10.01.2025, the Writ Petitioner has desired to sell away the Suit Schedule land. When the Writ Petitioner had approached the Respondent Nos.5 & 6 herein (District Registrar, Rayachoti and Sub-Registrar, Madanapalle respectively), the Writ Petitioner was informed that the Suit Schedule Property is placed in the Dispute Register on account of an Interim Injunction passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle in I.A.No.652 of 2023 in O.S.No.295 of 2023, and therefore, the subject property cannot be registered.
7. Having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove, it is noticed by this Court that the Interim Injunction Order passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Madanapalle, does not subsist now, inasmuch as the Interim Injunction has got merged with the Final Order of dismissal of the Suit „as not being pressed‟.
8. Having regard to the fact that the Interim Injunction dated 19.04.2023 got merged with the Final Order of the Dismissal of the Suit, it has to be deemed in law that any charge laid against the Suit Schedule Property by way of Interim Injunction cannot be continued. When once the Suit is dismissed, the effect of any interim order would automatically get extinguished.
49. The view expressed by this Court is fortified by the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in R. Jayaram and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others (Civil Appeal Nos.10098 - 10102 of 2010, decided on 29.11.2010) :
2010 SCC Online SC 1353. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has held at Para No.11 as under:
"11. As mentioned earlier, it is not in dispute that the advise was made on 04.01.1993 by the Government to the PSC on the basis of interim order passed by the High Court. Based on the said interim direction, the claim of the appellants was duly considered. Further, it is not in dispute that ultimately their writ petitions came to be dismissed on 20.07.1995. In such circumstances, as rightly pointed out by Mr. C.S. Rajan, learned senior counsel for the promotees that after dismissal of the main petition, interim order also gets vacated and the appellants cannot claim any benefit based on the interim order dated 04.01.1993. In this regard, it is useful to refer the judgments of this Court in (i) Employees' State Insurance Corpn. v. All India ITDC Employees' Union, (2006) 4 SCC 257 (ii) Amarjeet Singh v. Devi Ratan, (2010) 1 SCC 417 and
(iii) K. Thulaseedharan v. Kerala State Public Service Commission, Trivandrum, (2007) 6 SCC 190. In the first two decisions, it was held that once the main writ petition is dismissed, all the interim orders granted earlier gets merged with the final order ...........................................................
........................................................................authority"
10. In State of U.P Vs. Prem Chopra (Civil Appeal No.2417 of 2022, decidied on 25.03.2022 : 2022 SCC Online SC 1770. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has held at Para No.24 as under:
24. From the above discussion, it is clear that imposition of a stay on the operation of an order means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of passing of the stay order. However, it does not mean that the stayed order is wiped out from the existence, unless it is quashed. Once the proceedings, wherein a stay was granted, are dismissed, any interim order granted earlier merges with the final order. In other words, the interim order comes to an end with the dismissal of the proceedings. In such a situation, it is the duty of the Court to put the parties in the same position they would have been but for the interim order of the court, unless the order granting interim stay or final order dismissing the proceedings specifies otherwise.................................
......................................................... of the interim order"
511. In this view of the matter, the Respondent Authorities are not entitled to continue the Suit Schedule Property in the Dispute Register. Since the Suit (O.S.No.295 of 2023) is dismissed as not pressed, the Respondent Authorities (of the Revenue Department) ought to have deleted the Suit Schedule Land from the Dispute Register. Even if they have not deleted the property from the Dispute Register, such entry in the Dispute Register shall be treated as nonest in the eye of law from 10.01.2025 onwards.
12. In view of the clarification given by this Court, the Respondent Authorities are directed to proceed in accordance with Section 71 of the Registration Act, 1908, by receiving the Sale Deed and consider the same in accordance with law.
13.With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.
14.Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 30.01.2025 Note: Issue C.C by today B/O JKS 6 43 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 2414 OF 2025 30.01.2025 JKS