1
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR
PRESENT : SRI.M.GANDHI, B.Com., B.L.,
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR
This is the 21st day of April, 2017
C.M.A.No.06 of 2016 Between:-
V.Himavantha Rao, S/o.Raghava Rao, aged 48 years, Occ: Farmer and business, N/o.D.No.5- 27-4, Fanapavaram vilalge, Nadendla mandal, Guntur District – 522 619, presently residing at R/o.89/B, 3rd floor, Saroja Enclave, Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad. … Appellant/ Petitioner.
AND
1.Smt M.Pavani, W/o.Jagadishwar Reddy, aged about 32 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.16-2-741/, Plot No., ABE Colony, Asmangadh, Malakpet, Hyderabad – 500 036.
2.Jagadishwar Reddy, S/o.M.Venkat Reddy, aged about 32 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.16-2-741/, Plot No., ABE Colony, Asmangadh, Malakpet, Hyderabad – 500 036.
3.M.Shiva Raju, S/o.Sri Ramulu (Late), aged about Major, Occ: Government Employee, R/o.H.No.14-1-90/268, Gayatri nagar, Allapur, Borabanda, Hyderabad.
... Respondents/ Respondents.
AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE VIII ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, R.R.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR, in
I.A.No.921 of 2015 IN
O.S.No.988 of 2015
Between:- V.Himavantha Rao, S/o.Raghava Rao, aged 48 years, Occ: Farmer and business, N/o.D.No.5- 27-4, Fanapavaram vilalge, Nadendla mandal, Guntur District – 522 619, presently residing at R/o.89/B, 3rd floor, Saroja Enclave, Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad. … Petitioner/ Plaintiff.
2
AND
1.Smt M.Pavani, W/o.Jagadishwar Reddy, aged about 32 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.16-2-741/, Plot No., ABE Colony, Asmangadh, Malakpet, Hyderabad – 500 036.
2.Jagadishwar Reddy, S/o.M.Venkat Reddy, aged about 32 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.16-2-741/, Plot No., ABE Colony, Asmangadh, Malakpet, Hyderabad – 500 036.
3.M.Shiva Raju, S/o.Sri Ramulu (Late), aged about Major, Occ: Government Employee, R/o.H.No.14-1-90/268, Gayatri nagar, Allapur, Borabanda, Hyderabad.
... Respondents/ Defendants.
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is coming before me for hearing in the presence of M/s.Y.Anantha Raman, Counsel for the appellant and M/s.R.Mahender Reddy, Counsel for respondent and upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day this court made the following:-
O R D E R
The appellant Sri V.Himavantha Rao S/o.Raghava Rao a resident of Ganapavaram village, Nedendla mandal, Guntur District preferred this appeal against the orders passed by VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Ranga Reddy District in I.A No.921/2015 in OS No.988/2015 dated 21-08-2015.
2.The facts that leads to filing of the present appeal in brief are as follows:
The plaintiff V.Himavantha Rao filed an interlocutory application in I.A.No.921/2015 in OS No.988/2015 on the file of VIII Addl. Senior. Civil
Judge,RR district under 38 Rule 1 and 2 r/w 151 CPC praying the court to
grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents / defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff schedule property situated in Sy.No.60 admeasuring AC 1-03 guntas out of AC 1.20 guntas situated at Madinaguda village Sherlingampally mandal, RR District.
3
It is alleged by the plaintiff that he purchased the above property under a registered sale deed bearing document No.4413/2014 dated 07-04-2014 registered at the office of District Registrar, R.R. District and he is also holding an agreement of sale with GPA to an extent of 0.17 guntas situated at Madinaguda village and out of which part of the land was acquired by the government for laying public road and the remaining land is under the occupation of the third parties who are land grabbers. It is alleged by the plaintiff that he initiated steps for recovery of possession by evicting the third parties from the said properties. It is alleged that originally Smt
Champa devi and Har Kavur Pershad are the owners and through their GPA
Sri Indrajit Singh filed a statement U/s.6(1) of ULC Act 1976, declaring the property in Sy.Nos. 54 to 60 and 64 of Madinaguda village. It is alleged that the matter went to various appeals filed by the declarants and later their legal heirs and others questioned the various orders and proceedings. It is alleged that the matter was remitted back to special officer and competent authority urban land ceiling Act, Hyderabad and while the matter was taken up, the State of AP adopted the Repeal Act 1999 with effect from 27-3-2008.
In view of the Repeal Act the government has passed orders vide memo
dated 25-9-2008.
It is alleged that as per the instruction of the government the chief commission of land administration vide reference No.UC2/1976 2010
dated 2-11-2010 issued clarification that the land has to be delivered to the
declarants. As per the provision of Repeal Act, the SO and CA, ULC,
Hyderabad vide CC No.H2/113/ 81 dated 09-11-2010 and 21-06-2013 have made a request to the Dy. Collector and Tahasilder Sherlingampally mandal to deliver the possession of the property in Sy.Nos. 54/B , 55, 56, 57, 59, 64 including the suit schedule property in Sy.No.60 to the declarants or LRs of the declarants and directed to restore their names in the revenue records. It 4 is alleged that the Dy.Collectector / Tahasildars directed the Mandal surveyor and mandal inspector to inspect the land vide letter No.E1/1475/2013 dated 10-01-2014. The District collector, RR District requested special officer and competent authority to take over the possession of the lands as mentioned in the above survey numbers as per CCLA reference No.UC2/1976/2010
dated 2-11-2010 and in turn directed the Deputy Collector and Tahasildhar
to handover the possession of the land to the ULC authorities. Keeping in view of the hon'ble High Court order in Writ petition No.29293 of 2010 dated 4-2-2010 and as per the direction of the District collector vide letter dated 10-01-2014 the special officer and competent authority urban land ceiling
Hyderabad vdie proceedings dated 4-2-2014 issued directions to handover the possession of the subject land to the deputy officers under the cover of panchanama as per sketch and as per land in Sy. numbers 56, 57, 59, 60 and 64 admeasuring Ac-8-4 guntas and accordingly it was handover under panchanama dated 5-2-2014 along the sketch and in turn the EO and deputy inspector of surveys ULC re-delivered the possession of the said lands to the
LRs of the declarants under the cover of panchanama dated 5-2-2014 along with location sketch of subjected land. Accordingly the deputy collector and
Tahasildhar, Serlingampally mandal vide letter dated 7-2-2014 and addressed collector RR district about the compliance of the order.
Subsequent to delivery of the possession of the land, the LRs of declarants executed a sale deed on 22-2-2014 and the same was presented for registration and got registered and as on the date of execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff was put in possession of the property and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of purchase.
It is alleged by the plaintiff that he made an application on 14-3-2014 and 11-4-2014 to the District collecter and Tahasildars for mutation of his name in the revenue records basing on the sale deed dated 23-07-2013 and the 5 deputy collecter and Tahaldishar after conducting enquiry issued mutation proceedings dated 26-05-2014 and recorded the names of the plaintiff for the year 2014 and 2015. It is alleged by the petitioner that she came to know that the defendants purportedly forged and created the proceedings of the Deputy collector and Tahasildhar and got tampered the record and they made their names with anti dates in the office of Dy. Collector and
Tahaldishar, Sherlingampally mandal by using the forged sale deeds and GPA alleged to be executed in favour of Rahmat Shareef. The allegedly sale deed and GPA are created and the documents are Sham and nominal documents and not binding on the petitioners.
It is alleged that immediately these plaintiff applied for under
RTI Act on 24-7-2014 to the public information officer, office of the Dy collector and Tahasildhar, sherlingampally mandal and obtained the documents. It is alleged that the plaintiff came to know that one Rahmat
Shareef who was working as Miya Patwari/ VRO in the office of Dy. Collector
Tahasildhar, Sherlingampally mandal hatched a plan with an intention to gain wrongfully and to grab the suit schedule properties and other properties belonged to the government and ULC and other private lands situated at
Madinaguda and other area of the selected private individuals, political leaders and public servants and created forged sale deeds. It is alleged that the GPA in favour of Rahmat Shareef is fabricated and created and got registered by impersonation of one GPA. It is alleged that as per records one
Champa Devi and Har Kavur Pershad were the owners of the land covered by GPA. Har Kavour Peshad has no right to execute GPA prior to that GPA declarants was made by Hari Kavur Pershad and Champa Devi to ULC authorities through their GPA holder Indirajit Singh and as per ULC Act it was barred to execute any transaction or documents to the third parities. It is alleged that basing on the created and fabricated GPA another sale deed 6 bearing No.8829/1993 dated 28-09-1993 is said to have been executed in favour of C.Shiva raj and the said Shiva raj is no way concerned to sale deed as it was created, fabricated and forged document created by impersonation for the purpose of knocking away the property in collusion and shivaraj specifically appeared before the Dy Collector and Tahasildhar and according to his statement on 25-3-2014 he admitted that he never sold the properties to any one much more the 1st respondent and that he further admitted that he did not give any representation to Dy. Collector and Tahaslidhar and to
Revenue authorities for recording his name in Revenue records and further stated that the records which appeared on his name are forged and got created by tempering the records in his name. It is alleged that the revenue proceedings with the revenue records also were tampered and in connection with proceedings of Dy.Collector and Tahasildhar and MRO in respect of
Sy.No.60 has filed Caveat petition before Hon'ble High Court through counsel and a copy of the affidavit of caveat petition was served to Shivaraj and he gave reply stating that he is not concerned with Sy.no.60 and accordingly driving license submitted by shivaraj to Dy.collector and Tahasildhar he was born in the year 1969 and his age was not tallied in the sale deed. The original pattadhar Champadevi and Harr Kavur Pershad gave statement
before ULC authorities and the possession of the subject lands were taken
over as surplus vacant land by ULC authority and handover to MRO sherlingampally mandal on 28-6-1998 vide file no.H2/113/84 and ever since 1998 the suit land and other land was in possession of Dy. Collector and
Tahasildhar upto 5-2-2014. The name of Shivaraj is shown as M.Shivaraj and
P.Shivaraj and the mutation proceedings in favour of shivaraj is dated 1-10- 1993 and it shows that the proceeding were issued within 12 days of application without following the procedure contemplated under the Act and observes that the file number C/592/93 was altered as C/575/1993. It is 7 alleged that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Rahmat Shareef in collusion with authorities and staff members of office of Dy collector and Tahasildhar manipulated and created the records and prepared proceedings numbers
B/397 /2009 dated 8-03-2010 and the proceedings no.B/281/2012 dated 22-8-2012 in favour of 1st respondent by tampering the record and by using forged sale deed vide document No.7816/2008 dated 22/10/2005 and was presented on 10-6-2005 and registered as pending document as P513/2005 and after three years was registered as document No.7816/2008 dated 22- 10-2005 and R2 and Rahmat shareef stood as witness to the documents. As per the note file of Dy. Collector and Tahasildhar Sherlingampally prepared from 05-03-2013 to 07-02-2014, in sy.no.60 at pattadhar column the name of one shivaraj was recorded. The name of the 1st respondent was not recorded and proceedings were issued in favour of 1st respondent with anti date and the same was inserted in the office of Dy.Collector and Tahasildhar,
Sherlingampally in favour of Shivaraj and R1 and created and fabricated in the office of Dy. Collector and Tahasildhar by R1 and R2 in collusion with other staff members. The suit land in Sy.no.60 is covered by ULC Act and the
Dy. Collector has no authority to issue any mutation proceedings with anybody and when ULC proceedings are pending R1 prepared mutation orders issued in favour of petitioner and same is pending. It is alleged that subsequent to purchase of suit land the application was filed by P.Parhalad on 10-03-20145 for demarcation of Sy.No.63 and 64 of Madinagada village and the plaintiff being the adjacent owner of Sy.no.60 the office of Assistant
Director Surveyor and land record issued notice to the petitioner also. It is alleged by the plaintiff that he made complaint on 7-10-2014 to the government and other authorities for enquriy on the forged created proceedings and documents and the petitioner also filed the writ petition no.12928/2015 on the file of Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court 8 directed to take instructions within 2 weeks and the said writ is pending. In view of that the Dy. Collector and Tahasildhar initiated enquiry and issued notices to all concerned and on application of the petitioner the Dy.
Inspector of survey and land record conducted survey in sy.no.60 on 19-5- 2015, 27-05-2015 and 2-6-2015 and the petitioner and his brother went to site and while survey was conducting D2 and 20 others present and warned him with dire consequences and then the plaintiff approached the police and lodged report and the defendants again interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and tried to interfere and D1 filed a suit in OS 717/2015 on the file of XV Additional District Judge, Ranga
Reddy District and it is pending and the plaintiff who is apprehended danger to his possession over the property filed the petition.
3.The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their counter denying the ownership and possession of the suit schedule property. It is stated by R1 and R2 that origami Champadevi and Har kauvr Pershad who are the land owners in SY.No.54 to 60 and 64 of Madinaguda village sherlingampally mandal RR district. The defendants 1 and 2 denied that GPA holder Sri
Indrajith Singh filed statement U/s. 6(1) of Act. It is alleged that the respondents 1 and 2 noticed the ULC proceedings and ROC proceedings from the pleadings of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the plaintiff came to the
PS on 2-6-2015 it is alleged that the proceedings in ULC, orders of ULC report submitted by MRI along location sketch are created and concocted for the purpose of present petition. The originally order Har Kavur Pershad during his life time had alienated the land admeasuring AC 1-20 guntas in
Sy.No.20 through his GPA holder of M. Rahamat Shareef vide GPA document 2783/1991 dated 5-2-1191 and Mr. Rahamat shareef in turn sold the same to R3 under the document No.8829/1993 and R3 in turn sold the same to R1 under document No.7816/2008 dated 22-10-2005 and therefore, the 9 alienation of the property again by legal heirs in the year 2014 does not arise.
It is alleged by the defendants nos. 1 and 2 that the ROR proceedings refereed by the petitioner are false. It is alleged that the said proceedings are issued by Tahasildhar without noticing he physical possession of the defendants in the property. They stated that they never cratered any forged documents and not tampered records at any time with anti dates. It is stated by respondent that they purchased suit schedule property from consideration from its owner who is D3 who in turn purchased the same through GPA holder or original owner and pattader Har Kavur
Pershad. It is allege that the alleged delivery of possession by ULC authorities also invented and fabricated by the petitioner and the revenue records clearly show the possession of the respondent and the alleged statement of R3 dated 23-5-22014 is false and the respondents are in possession of suit schedule property from 2005 onwards and R1 name is appeared in the revenue record till the date of the petitioner alleged ROR proceedings. It is alleged that the petitioner deliberately lodged Caveat against the colluded persons R3 knowing fully well that R3 is not concerned with the suit property and it is R1 who is concerned with the property. The contention of the petitioner that ULC authorities took the surplus lands and handover to MRO sherlingampally mandal on 28-6-1998 is false. It is also denied the possession of the MRO from 1998 to 5-2-2014 and there is no documentary evidence to show the custody of the property of MRO. It is alleged that after purchase of R1 she made application for mutation for suit schedule property in her name and Tahasildhar conducted enquiry and mutated her name in the revenue records. It is alleged that on 2-6-2015 the plaintiff and others came to suit schedule property and started dismantling compound wall, security room without assigning any reason and R1 gave 10 report to police and on seeing the police the said persons fled away and on questioning by R1, they stated that they have come to land to conduct survey of the land abetting suit schedule property.
It is alleged that plaintiff approached the police on 18-6-2005 and gave false report. It is alleged that R1 came to know the pendency of cr.no.285/2015 only on looking the counter filed by plaintiff in ROR appeal no.C/32/66 2015 before the revenue divisional officer. It is alleged that when the plaintiff and his followers tried to dispose the watchman of the R1 from the suit schedule property on 2-7-2015 D1 fled suit in OS 717/2015 on the file of XV Additional District Judge, R.R.District for declaration and consequential injunction and after receiving summons the present suit is filed. It is alleged that the plaintiff has no prima faice case balance of convenience in his favour. It is alleged that R1 purchasing AC 1-20 guntas of land in SY.No.60 from shivaraj under sale deed bearing document no.7816/2008 dated 10-6-2005 who purchased the same under registered document 8829/1993 dated 4-9-93from its previous owner Har kavur
Pershad. The Tahasildhar in due course of time conducted enquiry mutated the property in the name of D1 and D1 is in possession of the property and
D1 encircled the properyty with Khannies, barbed wire and partly with compound wall apart from constructing room for the watch and ward in it. It is alleged that the plaintiff tried to dispossess R1 on 09-8-2015 but they could not succeed and as such the present suit is filed.
4. R3 filed counter stating the the suit is filed by misrepresentation of facts fabrication of documents and without cause of action. R3 denied the ownership of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property and stated that one
Champa Devi and Har Kavur Pershad were the owners of the properties and he has no knowledge about the ROR proceedings and writ proceedings. He also denied the taking of land by government as surplus land and redelivery 11 of the same to legal heirs of pattadars and in the first week of May 2014 the plaintiff and his muscle men threatened R3 and got his signatures on letters declaration statements and got them fabtricated as statement dated 23-5-2005 and took the orders of the revenue proceedings dated 26-5-2014.
It is alleged that he was compelled to scribe a letter consisting of two sheets and four pages as if it was addressed by him to District Collector and
Tahasildhar, Serlingampally while marking copy to District Collector and police Commissioner, Cyberabad. He stated that the contents of the documents are not true and correct. He further stated that he was also compelled to scribe letter on 2-5-2014 addressing to K.Anand Rao Advocate as reply to caveat. It is alleged that he was also made to sign on four non judicial papers and white papers are being used so far by the petitioner. He stated that he did not make any statement before Revenue courts in connection with earlier file and he being lawful ower sold the property to R1 under registered sale deed and the age discrepancy is out of innocence as the sale deeds were prepared by document writer. It is alleged that possession of the land was never taken by revenue authorities and it is with
R3 and he prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs.
5.During the course of enquiry before the lower court Ex.P1 to
Ex.P58 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R26 are marked on behalf of the respondents. No oral evidence or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of R2.
6.The lower court on considering the material on record dismissed the petition with costs.
7.Aggrieved by the above order of the lower court, the present appeal is preferred before this court.
12
8.Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim temporary injunction against the defendants inrespect of the suit schedule property as prayed for?
9.POINT:
The main suit is filed seeking the relief of perpetual injunction with respect of suit schedule property. The suit scheduled property is described as agricultural land admeasuring AC 1.03 guntas out of Ac 1.20 guntas in Sy.no.60 of Madinaguda village, Sherilingampally mandal, RR district with specific boundaries. It is admitted fact that Ac -1-20 guntas in
Sy.60 of Madinaguda village was original owned by Champa Devi and Har
Kavur Pershad along other lands. The suit is concerened with Ac 1.03 guntas of land in Sy No.60 which is a vacant land. The photographs filed by the plaintiff shows that there is multi stored building very near to the suit schedule property. The plaintiff who is claiming temporary injunction has to prove that he has prima facie case over suit schedule property on the date of filing of the suit. He also establish that balance of continence is in his favour. The third ingredient to be proved by the plaintiff is that he would suffer irreparable loss and injury in the event of refusing the grant of relief of temporary injunction.
10.The case of the petitioner is that the land belonged to Champa
Devi and Har Kavur Pershad and it was subjected to urban land ceiling proceedings and during the pendency of the proceedings there cannot be any transfer of the property and any transfer is made it is void under law. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the ULC authorities took possession of the property and in turn handedover the possession to MRO under panchanama dated 28-6-1998 and subsequently Urban Ceiling Repeal Act came into force and by virtue of panchanama dated 05-02-2014 the MRI 13
Sherlingampally delivered the actual possession of the suit schedule property to the LRs of the declarants and the LRs of the declarants got possession of the property and being the owners and possessor sold the property to the plaintiff under registration sale deed dated 7-4-2014. The pleadings of the plaintiff clearly goes to show that the vendors of the plaintiff got possession of the property by virtue of delivery given by MRI sherlingampally vide panchanama dated 5-2-2014 and also subsequently by virtue of sale deed by his vendors and his sale deed is dated 7-4-2014. The plaintiff contended that the documents in the name of D3 are false documents and there was no
GPA in favour of D3 and the sale deed in favour of D3 and alienation of property by D3 in favour of D1 is not true and correct and it is a false document. The plaintiff has filed documents showing that D3 gave reply to the caveat, statement of letter before the Revenue authorities and those clearly goes to show that the documents in favour of D3 were false. D3 explained in his counter under what circumstances he signed on the documents and he alleged that the signatures were obtained by using threat and undue influence and prepared in favour of the plaintiff to claim the properties. During the course of proceedings, D3 supported the case of defendants 1 and 2. The sale deed of D1 is admittedly earlier in point of time than the plaintiff. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the name of D3 and D1 are mutated in revenue records but his contention is those mutation proceedings are collusive proceedings and contrary to law. Admittedly the mutation order in favour of the plaintiff by revenue official is suspended by
RDO. Except the title deed in the name of the plaintiff, the revenue record is not supporting the claim of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. All the documents field by the plaintiff are said to be concerning to ULC proceedings, the panchanama conducted for survey of the property, redelivery of the property and the documents concerned there were said to 14 have been obtained under right to information Act. The lower court rightly suspected those documents on looking those documents, however the lower court considered those documents again assuming as true documents.
11.Now it is necessary to look into the Urban Land(Ceiling and
Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 and the provisions thereunder. Section 3 (1) of the Repeal Act says as follows:
The Repeal Act of the principle act shall not affect
a) the vesting of any vacant land under sub section (3) of section 10, possession of which has been taken over by the State Government or any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf of by the competent authority.
b) the validity of any order granting exemption under sub section (1) of section 20 or any action taken thereunder, notwithstanding any judgment of any court to the contrary.
c) any payment made to the State Government as a condition for granting exemption under sub Section (1) section 20.
2. Where
a) any land is deemed to have vested in the State Government under sub- section (3) of Section 10 of the Prinicipal Act but possession of which has not been taken over by the State Government of any person duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf or by the competent authority; and
b) any amount has been paid by the State Government with resepct to such lands, then such land shall not be restored unless the amount paid, if any, has been refunded to the State Government.
15
12. Therefore the above provisions clearly speaks that if the land is taken possession by the State government by person authoriszed by State government or by competent authority on the date of coming into force of the Repeal Act 1999 it is not effected by the provisions of the Repeal Act.
13.In the present case, the property was taken over by the government and how it was ordered for redelivery to the LRs of the original l declarants is not known. It is not explained by the plaintiff. Therefore, the delivery of property by Mandal Revenue Inspector to the LRs of the original declarants is contrary to the provisions of the Repeal Act 1999. Ex.P1 is the registered sale deed stand in the name of the plaintiff executed by legal heirs of the original owners. Ex.P2 is government memo isused by Prl.
Secretary to Government. The sum and substance of the memo is that a representation dated 14-8-2008 was made by one M.Narayan goud as GPA of Rajksihan prasad and Prem Kishan prashad to release the land in Sy.Nos.
including the suit survey numbers in favour of declarants. It further reveals that it was examined by spl chief security and chief commission of administration under the reference cited there. Ex.P3 is the letter dated 2- 11-2010 issued from the office of land administration A.P. with regard to same subject. In this case the letter stated that further action is repealed by virtue of Repeal Act 1999 and possession has to be delivered to the declarants. Ex.P4 is another letter dated 9-11-2010 from the office of ULC to the Dy. Collector and Tahasildhar, Serlingampally where-under a reference was made to the statements made by the original owners through their GPA Indrajith Singh and it was enquired into and the possession of the surplus land was takenover by MRO serlingampally on 28-6-1998 under
Ex.P25. It is also referred to several proceedings initiated by either side and ultimately reveals that the matter has been referred to government and in government in turn directed that the case is not saved under Repeal Act 16 because the possession of the land was not taken duly following the provisions under section 10(3) 10(5) and 10 (6) of the Act and therefore the land do not vested on government and also directed to deliver the possession to the declarants. Consequently the CCL awaited reference 2nf cited was also directed to compel the government orders duly taking care to defend the interest of the government. It was ordered to restore the entries and implement the same in revenue records showing the land as patta lands and deliver the possessions of the surplus land as per government orders to the declarants LRs of the declarants.
14.Admittedly the MRO Serlingampally took possession of the surplus land under Ex.P5 panchanama dated 28-6-1998. The Repeal Act came into force subsequently. On the date of coming into force of Repeal
Act, the land was already vested to the Government. But the Govenment stated in Ex.P4 that the possession of the land was not taken duly following the provisions under section 10(3) 10(5) and 10(6) of the Act. Ex.P4 is silent with regard to what aspect there is non compliance and how the land is not vested to government. It appears that when the matter is referred to the government and the government in order to protect the declarants gave such an order stating that the possession of the land was not taken duly following the provisions of law. Such order created all these proceedings and litigation. Ex.P5 is the orders of the Hon'ble High court and those are with regard to Sy.No. 54 and 56 of Madinaguda village and those are not concerned with the suit schedule property. Ex.P6 is another letter dated 21- 6-2011 from the office of ULC to the deputy collector and Tahalishdhar,
Serilingampally mandal. The modification of stay orders were referred in the order and it is stated that the possession of the land has to be delivered to the declarants in Sy.no.56 ad 57 59 and 60 and 64 to an extent of AC 8-4 guntas of Madinaguda village and to restore entries in revenue records. It 17 also mentioned that a copy of panchanama handing over the possession to
MRO, Serlingampally 1998 was enclosed. Till the government held that the possession of the land was not taken in accordance with section 10 (3)10 (5) and 10 (6) of the Act, the authorities are very much aware and know the consequences of taken over the possession of the land by the government vide pancahanama under Ex.P24. At first instance the government noticed alleged violation and order for delivery of the property without giving valid reasons. All these questions are to be considered by the trial court in the detailed trial before the lower court. Ex.P7 is the memo dated 5-7-2014 from the office of Deputy collector and Tahasildhar, Sherlingampally, wherein a direction was given to MRO to inspect the land and report the physical status for taking necessary action. Ex.P8 is the joint inspection report without date.
It is with regard to survey nos.56 57, 59 and 60 and 64. so far as the suit schedule property is concerned it is mentioned that portion of the land is open land and balance is covered with roads and building structures are also appeared and so called Sy.no.60 is concerned it is noticed that 11 guntas is covered by road, 6 guntas is covered by construction and open area is Ac 1.03 guntas. Ex.P10 is letter from the office of ULC dated 04-02-2014 and it references to joint inspection conducted by Deputy Collector and Tahaslidhar to handover the possession to Dy. Inspector of surveyor and land records.
Ex.p11 is the panchanama dated 5-2-2014 under which the possession was said to have handedover to MRI to special Tahasildhar who in turn taken over by the LRs of the Declarants. Ex.P12 is the letter under which it was informed that the possession of the land was handover. Ex.P14 is the proceedings of Deputy Collector and Tahasildhar wherein changes were ordered in pattadhar column in Revenue register under section 4 and 5 of
ROR Act. These proceedings are mutation proceedings issued basing on the sale deed of the plaintiff dated 7-4-2014 and Ex.P16 is the pahanies for the 18 year 201 and 2015 showing the plaintiff as possessor and pattadhar of the disputed property.
15.On reading above documents and other documents which are discussed at length by the learned trial judge it is clear that the joint inspection of the suit schedule property is much doubtful. The order passed by the government also contrary to the provisions of ULC Repeal Act. The plaintiff himself is saying that the possession of the land was taken over by the government and vested with the government prior to the commencment of the Urban land ceiling Repeal Act. The plaintiff is not contending that the possessions was not taken in accordance of the provisions of section 10 of the Act. To the utter surprise, and to give benefit to the declarants the government for the reasons best known to it, passed orders ordering the deliver of the possession of the property by saying that the provisions of section 10 are not followed and as such re-delivery was ordered. The entire revenue record came into picture only basing on the re-delivery order passed by the government contrary to the provision of section 3 of the Act.
If the Repeal Act is impleaded in letter and spirit, there would not be any re-delivery of the property to the declarants or his legal representatives.
16.The defendants contending that they are in possession of the property and D1 purchased the property under sale deed from D3 and those sale deed are prior in point of time than the plaintiff sale deed. The defendants also filed documentary proof to show their possessions and enjoyment of the property by producing the revenue records. It is also admitted by plaintiff that the revenue records are in favour of the defendants. But he explained the same saying that the sale deed, GPA of D3 and the revenue records are collusive documents brought into existence.
The mutation made in the name of the plaintiff in revenue records is suspended by appeal before RDO. In the present circumstances to show the 19 possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property, the only document available is his sale deed. The defendants are relying upon the revenue records as well as their sale deed to establish their possession and enjoyment in the Plaint schedule property by constructing a room for watchman raising a fence and partly raising compound wall.
17.The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that he filed several documents before the lower court but those documents are not marked and not considered by the lower court. He also filed application to receive additional documents before this court. The plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie possessions over the property cannot claim temporary injunction. The suit schedule property is a vacant land and the person who is in philosophical possession of the property is entitled to seek temporary injunction and incidentally the title is also to be enquired into.
The pleadings of the plaintiff goes to show that the defendants interfered with the possession of the plaintiff and the plaintiff obtained the copies of the documents of the defendants and mutation proceedings but he filed the suit specifically for injunction and he did not seek the comprehensive relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in his favour. When the title of the plaintiff is denied and it is reveled from the pleadings of the plaint the appropriate relief is to be asked by the plaintiff is declaratory relief but not mere injunction. Therefore suit for mere injunction is also not in accordance with law. So far as the documents filed before this court and also called from the lower court are concerned, those are to be examined in the trial of the suit and in the present case, complicated question of law with regard to possession and title are involved it is necessary to adjudicate in the lower court by conducting trial before the lower court. This being appealing court on I. A. cannot decide the issues raised by the parties. Therefore, this court found that the plaintiff has no prima facie case, balance of convenience 20 and failed to established to irreparable loss so as to grant temporary injunction. So far as the unmarked documents filed before the lower court which are called before this court are concerned, the lower court is directed to examine them and mark them subject to proof and admissibility during the course of trial. It is also appropriate to direct the lower court to disposal of the suit on merits within a time bound programme.
18.In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs confirming the orders of the VIII Senior Civil Judge, at L.B.Nagar, in I.A.No.921 of 2015 in O.S.No.988 of 2015 dated 21-08-2015 and the lower court is directed to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the
open Court, on this the 21st day of April., 2017.
II ADDL., DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.