Sri P.Bala Venkata Koteswara Rao

O.S.26/2013 Page 1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: JAGGAIAHPET

PRESENT: MR P. Bala Venkata Koteswara Rao

Principal junior Civil Judge

This is the 13 th day of October, 2016

O.S.No.26/2013

BETWEEN: Konda Nagamma, w/o Kotayya, Hindu, age 40 years, House wife, R/o Bangaarpet, Jaggaiahpet Town and

Mandal, Krishna District. .....Plaintiff

Vs

1.Bathula Lakshmi, w/o Subrahmanyam, Age 35 years, House wife. 2.Bathula Subrahmanyam, Age 40 years, RTC conductor. …….Defendants ( Both are the residents of Bipass Road Chiru Nagar, Jaggaiahpet Town and Mandal, Krishna District.)

This suit is coming on 21-09-2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Gopinath, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri K.Nageswara

Rao, Advocate for the defendants and on a perusal of record and having stood over to this day for consideration this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaint filed Under Section 26 Order 4 Rule 1 of C.P.C. on behalf of the plaintiff and the plaintiff prays that the Court may be pleased to pass a decree and Judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and to grant Permanent Injunction and restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, servants, followers, from interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule property and costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:-

The Plaintiff humbly submitted that the she is the absolute owner and possessor of the Plaint Schedule property which is situated in Bangarpeta in

Jaggaiahpet Town and Mandal. It is further respectively submitted that the

Plaintiff got the Plaint Schedule property through Tahsildar of Jaggaiahpet

Mandal vide office letter R.C.A.385/2007 dated 15-09-2010. She obtained a loan from Government Housing Corporation Department also. Since then the

Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule property. Since

January 24th of 2013 the Defendants tried to restrain the Plaintiff from her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule property. The Plaintiff tried her level best to resist the defendants from unlawful occupying the Plaint

Schedule property. The Plaintiff unable to resist the Defendants not to enter

O.S.26/2013 Page 2 of 8

into the Schedule property. She sent a representation to the District Collector

Krishna on 21-01-2013 but no action was taken against the Defendants. She made a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jaggaiahpet Police

Station on 26-01-2013 and roaming around the Police Station for justice but the Police did not take any action against the Defendants. Hence, the Plaintiff prays the Honorable Court to grant Permanent Injunction and restraining the

Defendants, their men, agents, servants, followers, from interfering with the

Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule property and costs of the suit.

3. The defendants filed their written statement by pleadings are as follows:-

All the material averments mentioned in the plaint are not true and correct. The suit is not maintainable in law or on facts. The plaintiff will be put to strict proof of all allegations which are not specifically admitted by the defendants here-under. The allegation that the is the absolute owner and possessor of the Plaint Schedule property which is situated in Bangarpeta in

Jaggaiahpet Town and Mandal. It is further respectively submitted that the

Plaintiff got the Plaint Schedule property through Tahsildar of Jaggaiahpet

Mandal vide office letter R.C.A.385/2007 dated 15-09-2010. She obtained a loan from Government Housing Corporation Department also. Since then the

Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule property. Since

January 24th of 2013 the Defendants tried to restrain the Plaintiff from her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule property. The Plaintiff tried her level best to resist the defendants from unlawful occupying the Plaint

Schedule property. The Plaintiff unable to resist the Defendants not to enter into the Schedule property. She made a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Jaggaiahpet Police Station on 26-01-2013 and roaming around the

Police Station for justice but the Police did not take any action against the

Defendants. Hence, the Plaintiff prays the Honorable Court to grant Permanent

Injunction are all not true and correct. The 2nd defendant is no other than the husband of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant humbly submits that the site

O.S.26/2013 Page 3 of 8

measuring Ac.5.83 cents in R.S.No.398 of Jaggaiahpet Revenue Village originally was a burial ground belongs to the Government. Out of which some of the area was occupied by the poor people and was residing therein. Since the occupants had no pacca houses, the Government has decided to remove those houses and provide them pacca houses after lay out the said site and allotting plots to the said occupants and other poor people. Accordingly the office of the

Mandal Thasildar prepared a layout plan by making the aforesaid site division of 130 plots consisting of Ac.0.02 cents each and sent the same to the

Commissioner Jaggaiahpet Municipality who removed the occupants, for the allotment of house plots to the poor people including the persons who lost their houses. Thereupon the Jaggaiahpet Municipality has prepared a beneficiaries list and allotted the plots in two stages. The 1st defendant further submits that as per the beneficiaries list made by the Jaggaiahpet Municipality, she was allotted with a plot No.36 and her plot was delivered to her and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of her plot i.e., the schedule property by raising walls to the basement level. The 1st defendant made an application in

Rachabanda for the sanction of loan under A.P.State Housing Corporation

Limited, Krishna District and that the same was approved by the concerned authorities under proceedings bearing No.Pro.No.768/AE/2011-4 dt.13-05- 2013. The Photostat copies of list of applicants prepared in Rachaband II, herewith filed for the kind perusal of the Honorable Court. The facts stand thus, the Plaintiff, who was allotted with a plot bearing No.42 has been in possession of the said plot, but not plot No.36 as claimed by her. In fact the

Thasildar of Jaggaiahpet Mandal never issued any letter R.C.A 385/2007 dt.15-09-2010 and she never obtained a loan from the Government Housing

Corporation Department and that she never been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The Plaintiff had no manner of any right or possession over the schedule property. But she filed this suit with a view to grab the schedule property which was developed by the 1st Defendant by spending much more money and made some construction therein. She made a

O.S.26/2013 Page 4 of 8

false complaint to the Police Jaggaiahpet. The Police Jaggaiahpet wrote a letter dt.15-02-2013 to know about the actual allotters of the plots 36, 37, 41 and

42. The commissioner, Jaggaiahpet Municipality replied to the said letter denoting that the plaintiff was allotted with a plot bearing no.42 and the 1st defendant herein was allotted with a plot bearing No.36, and other two plots namely Nos.37 and 41 were allotted to Bathula Parvathi and Gunisetty

Ramana respectively. As such it is clearly established that the Plaintiff was allotted with a plot bearing No.42 and the 1st defendant was allotted with plot bearing No.36. Since it is in the classification of burial grounds no Patta could be granted unless the classification was changed in the village accounts.

Thereafter no Patta was issued to any of the beneficiaries at the time of allotment. Thereafter the same was changed by the revenue authorities on 18- 03-2011. Till the date no Pattas could be granted in the name of anybody. But the plaintiff has brought a letter of allotment as if it was issued by the

Thasildar, allotting plot no.36 to the Plaintiff. In fact the said plot that is the schedule property herein was allotted to the 1st defendant and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by raising walls to the basement level by spending huge amount of Rs.25,000/-. It is therefore the 1st defendant humbly submits that the plaintiff has created the said letter dt.15-09-2010 by which time the classification of the site was also not effected and filed this suit with a view to harass the defendants and thereby to gain wrongfully. It is therefore the defendants pray that the Honorable Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

5. Basing on the above pleadings this court framing the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against the Defendants or not?

2. To what relief?

Issue No.I:-

6.From the evidence of the P.W.1, P.W.2 coupled with the evidence of the

D.W.1 and D.W2 and the Exhibits marked on either side as Exhibits A1 to

A3 and B1 to B 4, it is the fact that was not disputed that the Plaint Schedule

O.S.26/2013 Page 5 of 8

property is originally burial ground. The said fact of the Plaint Schedule property being the burial ground earmarked for the cremation of the people who passed away to keep the dignity of the mankind which carries throughout.

The fact that even the dead body of the deceased human being carries with all dignity is an established fact and which cannot be not denied from any section.

The human being in our society which we are part in it should not act against the trust of the people of human society.

7.It is the basic and core need of the people that every Village and every

Hamlet in our society is provided with burial ground from time of the inception of making laws to govern ourselves irrespective of the number of the population and irrespective of the number of population of the Hamlet and irrespective of the religion they are practicing in their village. It is also pertinent to mention that in our system all the religions are also honored in all quarters in the society. It is also apt to mention that one can select his religion of his choice and practice the religion at his choice and also the public at all levels are also

honoring the religious practice i.e., being adopted by the people of their choice

by one and all in our society without any deviation. Therefore, the law recognizes the burial ground is an earmarked place for the public with a particular intention of the human dignity that has to be honored. As part of it the Governments at all time honoring the same for which reason even the revenue records wherever the burial ground are earmarked were not changed.

The document Ex.B4 issued by the Jaggaiahpet Municipality i.e., filed by the

Defendants is of no use even to the case of the Defendants. Since no house site will be provided in the burial ground at the cost of the Public at large.

Therefore, the evidence of the P.W.1 with that of the evidence the P.W.2 when read with the evidence of Ex.A1 to A3 and exhibits B1 to B4, It is clearly establishing that the Plaint Schedule property is part and parcel of the burial ground and the Plaintiff is one among the members who occupied the burial ground. Therefore, the mere enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule property by the

Plaintiff even according to the pleadings and the evidence of the Plaintiff, that if so facto is not a ground to grant Permanent Injunction in favour of the

O.S.26/2013 Page 6 of 8

Plaintiff. The mere house tax receipt under Ex.A2 also will not come to the aid of the Plaintiff. Even the Ex.A1 is the document issued by the Thasildar,

Jaggaiahpet is not a Patta that is enumerated under the assigned laws in

Andhra Pradesh.. On the other hand the very Ex.A1 is not even disclosing the boundaries in which this house site document was given by the Thasildar.

Even this Ex.A1 in favour of the Plaintiff is not recognized by the law i.e., in force. Therefore, the Thasildar cannot act against the exisisting provisions of the law and this court also cannot act against the provisions of law. It is apt to mention that the burial ground is not a convertible land even in the Revenue

Records. Therefore, any kind of documents much less Ex.A1 when not honored by the provisions of law in force, the courts are not supposed to act upon those documents to give any relief. Even the case of the Plaintiff that, the plot No.36 is in the possession of the Plaintiff is also not in accordance with law. Merely because a particular person is in possession of immovable property like the present nature of the Plaint Schedule property, that does not mean to say that the Plaintiff is entitled to continue in that property i.e., to say like the Plaint

Schedule property. As a matter of right Therefore, the courts should not encourage this kind of possession by granting Permanent Injunction by depriving the rights of the public at large to enjoy the burial ground for a particular purpose of cremation of the human beings who are passed away in whichever form it is i.e., practicing in the vicinity and therefore, this court in its considered view that the Plaintiff is not entitled to Permanent injunction

8.Therefore, when the Plaint Schedule property is not that of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, even according to the case of the Plaintiff and the

Defendants and when the Plaint Schedule property is the burial ground It is the duty of the Government to see that the burial ground should be protected at the expense of the Government at all times, In order to facilitate the honour of the mankind should be honored without any kind of hindrance from any section in the society for whatever reason that is emanated from that section in the society by providing alternative provision and not by giving the burial grounds which is not accepted by Law. It is the goal and object of the

O.S.26/2013 Page 7 of 8

Government to protect the honor of the mankind by protecting the very basic needs of the society and protecting the burial ground is also part and parcel of the duties of the Government. Therefore, it is in its considered view of the this court that District Collector being the representative the State must appraise the facts to the Government repressing by the Chief secretary of the

Government and he must take steps by mobilizing of all cadre of the lower rung of the department working under him, so as to prevent the occupation of the burial ground as and when it comes to his notice as a trustee of the Public representing the state and to avoid unhealthy litigation and to avoid scope to come to courts with no basis to continue in possession. The set of facts that are mentioned in the Plaint and in the written statement and the evidence after going through by this court of the Plaintiff and the Defendants coupled with documents marked on either side, this court holds that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any kind of relief in the way of Permanent Injunction. The Court by way of Permanent Injunction cannot jeopardize the rights of the third parties (by way of Permanent Injunction) over the Plaint Schedule property which is the part and parcel of the burial ground. It is apt to mention that the plaintiff on guise of the Exhibit A1 issued by the Tahasildar cannot seek Permanent injunction in any manner. For the reasons recorded above this Issue is answered Negative to the Plaintiff.

In the result the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of October, 2016.

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Jaggayyapeta

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

P.W.1- Konda Nagamma. D.W.1 – Bhathula Subramanyam. P.W.2- Gande Pullaiah. D.W.2 – P.Hanumantha Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

O.S.26/2013 Page 8 of 8

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1- Letter of Thasildar, Jaggaiahpet. Ex.A2- House Tax receipt. Ex.A3- Certified copy issued by the Municipality in favour of D2.

DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1 – Photo copy of endorsement of Thasildar, Jaggaiahpet. Ex.B2 – Photo copy of the proceedings of the District Collector. Ex.B3 - Photo coy of the letter by the Commissioner, Jaggaiahpet. Ex.B4 – Endorsement by the information Officer, Jaggaiahpet Municipality.

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Jaggayyapeta //True Copy//

O.S.25/2013 Page 1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: JAGGAIAHPET

PRESENT: MR P. Bala Venkata Koteswara Rao

Principal junior Civil Judge

This is the 13 th day of October, 2016

O.S.No.25/2013

BETWEEN: Gunisetti Ramana, w/o Konda, Hindu, Age 40 years House wife, R/o Bangaarpeta, Jaggaiahpet Town and

Mandal, Krishna District. .....Plaintiff

Vs

1.Bathula Parvathi, w/o Rammurthy, Age 35 years, House wife. 2.Bathula Subrahmanyam, Age 40 years, RTC Conductor …….Defendants ( Both are the residents of Bipass Road Chiru Nagar, Jaggaiahpet Town and Mandal, Krishna District.)

This suit is coming on 26-09-2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Gopinath, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri K.Nageswara

Rao, Advocate for the defendants and on a perusal of record and having stood over to this day for consideration this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaint filed Under Section 26 Order 4 Rule 1 of C.P.C. on behalf of the plaintiff and the plaintiff prays that the Court may be pleased to pass a decree and Judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and to grant Permanent Injunction and restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, servants, followers, from interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule property and costs of the suit.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:-

The Plaintiff humbly submitted that the she is the absolute owner and possessor of the Plaint Schedule property which is situated in Bangarpeta in

Jaggaiahpet Town and Mandal. It is further respectively submitted that the

Plaintiff got the Plaint Schedule property through Tahsildar of Jaggaiahpet

Mandal vide office letter R.C.A.385/2007 dated 15-09-2010. She obtained a loan from Government Housing Corporation Department also. Since then the

Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule property. Since

January 24th of 2013 the Defendants tried to restrain the Plaintiff from her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule property. The Plaintiff tried her level best to resist the defendants from unlawful occupying the Plaint

O.S.25/2013 Page 2 of 8

Schedule property. The Plaintiff unable to resist the Defendants not to enter into the Schedule property. She made a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Jaggaiahpet Police Station on 26-01-2013 and roaming around the

Police Station for justice but the Police did not take any action against the

Defendants. Hence, the Plaintiff prays the Honorable Court to grant Permanent

Injunction and restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, servants, followers, from interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule property and costs of the suit.

3. The defendants filed their written statement by pleadings are as follows:-

All the material averments mentioned in the plaint are not true and correct. The suit is not maintainable in law or on facts. The plaintiff will be put to strict proof of all allegations which are not specifically admitted by the defendants here-under. The allegation that the is the absolute owner and possessor of the Plaint Schedule property which is situated in Bangarpeta in

Jaggaiahpet Town and Mandal. It is further respectively submitted that the

Plaintiff got the Plaint Schedule property through Tahsildar of Jaggaiahpet

Mandal vide office letter R.C.A.385/2007 dated 15-09-2010. She obtained a loan from Government Housing Corporation Department also. Since then the

Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule property. Since

January 24th of 2013 the Defendants tried to restrain the Plaintiff from her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Schedule property. The Plaintiff tried her level best to resist the defendants from unlawful occupying the Plaint

Schedule property. The Plaintiff unable to resist the Defendants not to enter into the Schedule property. She made a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Jaggaiahpet Police Station on 26-01-2013 and roaming around the

Police Station for justice but the Police did not take any action against the

Defendants. Hence, the Plaintiff prays the Honorable Court to grant Permanent

Injunction are all not true and correct. The 2nd defendant is no other than the relative of the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant humbly submits that the site measuring Ac.5.83 cents in R.S.No.398 of Jaggaiahpet Revenue Village

O.S.25/2013 Page 3 of 8

originally was a burial ground belongs to the Government. Out of which some of the area was occupied by the poor people and was residing therein. Since the occupants had no pacca houses, the Government has decided to remove those houses and provide them pacca houses after lay out the said site and allotting plots to the said occupants and other poor people. Accordingly the office of the

Mandal Thasildar prepared a layout plan by making the aforesaid site division of 130 plots consisting of Ac.0.02 cents each and sent the same to the

Commissioner Jaggaiahpet Municipality who removed the occupants, for the allotment of house plots to the poor people including the persons who lost their houses. Thereupon the Jaggaiahpet Municipality has prepared a beneficiaries list and allotted the plots in two stages. The 1st defendant further submits that as per the beneficiaries list made by the Jaggaiahpet Municipality, she was allotted with a plot No.37 and her plot was delivered to her and since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of her plot i.e., the schedule property by raising walls to the basement level. The 1st defendant made an application in

Rachabanda for the sanction of loan under A.P.State Housing Corporation

Limited, Krishna District and that the same was approved by the concerned authorities under proceedings bearing No.Pro.No.768/AE/2011-4 dt.13-05- 2013. The Photostat copies of list of applicants prepared in Rachaband II, herewith filed for the kind perusal of the Honorable Court. The facts stand thus, the Plaintiff, who was allotted with a plot bearing No.41 has been in possession of the said plot, but not plot No.37 as claimed by her. In fact the

Thasildar of Jaggaiahpet Mandal never issued any letter R.C.A 385/2007 dt.15-09-2010 and she never obtained a loan from the Government Housing

Corporation Department and that she never been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The Plaintiff had no manner of any right or possession over the schedule property. But she filed this suit with a view to grab the schedule property which was developed by the 1st Defendant by spending much more money and made some construction therein. She made a false complaint to the Police Jaggaiahpet. The Police Jaggaiahpet wrote a letter

O.S.25/2013 Page 4 of 8

dt.15-02-2013 to know about the actual allotters of the plots 36, 37, 41 and

42. The commissioner, Jaggaiahpet Municipality replied to the said letter denoting that the plaintiff was allotted with a plot bearing no.41 and the 1st defendant herein was allotted with a plot bearing No.37, and other two plots namely Nos.35 and 42 were allotted to Bathula Lakshmi and Konda Nagamma respectively. As such it is clearly established that the Plaintiff was allotted with a plot bearing No.41 and the 1st defendant was allotted with plot bearing No.37.

Since it is in the classification of burial grounds no patta could be granted unless the classification was changed in the village accounts. Thereafter no patta was issued to any of the beneficiaries at the time of allotment. Thereafter the same was changed by the revenue authorities on 18-03-2011. Till the date no pattas could be granted in the name of anybody. But the plaintiff has brought a letter of allotment as if it was issued by the Thasildar, allotting plot no.37 to the Plaintiff. In fact the said plot that is the schedule property herein was allotted to the 1st defendant and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by raising walls to the basement level by spending huge amount of Rs.25,000/-. It is therefore the 1st defendant humbly submits that the plaintiff has created the said letter dt.15-09-2010 by which time the classification of the site was also not effected and filed this suit with a view to harass the defendants and thereby to gain wrongfully. It is therefore the defendants pray that the Honorable Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

5. Basing on the above pleadings this court framing the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction against the Defendants or not?

2. To what relief?

Issue No.I:-

6.From the evidence of the P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and Exhibits A1 to A4 and from the evidence of the D.W.1 and D.W.2 and exhibits B1 to B 6, It is the undisputed fact that the Plaint Schedule property is originally burial ground.

O.S.25/2013 Page 5 of 8

The said fact of the Plaint Schedule property being the burial ground earmarked for the cremation of the people who passed away. The fact that even the dead body of the deceased human being carries with all dignity. The human being in our society which we are part in it should not act against the trust of the people of human society.

7.It is the basic need of the people that every Village and every Hamlet in our society is provided with burial ground irrespective of the number of the population of the village and irrespective of the number of population of the

Hamlet and irrespective of the religion they are practicing in their villages. It is also pertinent to mention that in our system all the religions are also honored from all quarters in the society. It is also apt to mention that one can select his religion of his choice and practice the religion at his choice and also the public at all levels are also honoring the religious practice i.e., being adopted by the people of their choice by one and all in our society without any deviation.

Therefore, the law recognizes the burial ground is an earmarked place for the public with a particular intention of the human dignity that has to be honored.

As part of it the Governments at all time honoring the same for which reason even the revenue records wherever the burial grounds are earmarked were not changed. That fact is really establishing from the Ex.B4 document i.e., the

R.S.R register copy i.e., filed by the Defendants. Therefore, the very evidence of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 when read with the evidence of Ex.A1 to A4 it is clearly establishing that the Plaint Schedule property is part and parcel of the burial ground and the Plaintiff is one among the members who occupied the burial ground. Therefore, the mere enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule property by the

Plaintiff even according to the case of the Plaintiff, that ifso facto is not a ground to grant Permanent Injunction in favour of the Plaintiff. The mere house tax receipt under Ex.A3 also will not come to the aid of the Plaintiff.

Even the Ex.A1 certificate of Issuing by the Thasildar, Jaggaiahpet is not a

Patta that is enumerated under the Assigned laws in Andhra Pradesh.. On the other hand the very Ex.A1 is not even disclosing the boundaries in which this house site document was given by the Thasildar. Even this Ex.A1 in favour of

O.S.25/2013 Page 6 of 8

the Plaintiff is not recognized by the law i.e., in force. Therefore, the Thasildar cannot act against the provisions of the law and this court also cannot act against the provisions of law. It is apt to mention that the burial ground is not a convertible land even in the revenue records. Therefore, any kind of documents much less Ex.A1 when not honored by the provisions of law in force, the courts are not supposed to act upon those documents to give any relief. Even the case of the defendants that the plot No.37 is in the possession of the D1 is also not in accordance with law and it should not be considered for any purpose even for the sake of appreciation. Merely because a particular person is in possession of immovable property like the present nature of the

Plaint Schedule property that does not mean to say that the Plaintiff is entitled to continue in that property i.e., to say like the Plaint Schedule property.

Therefore, the courts should not encourage this kind of possession by granting

Permanent Injunction by depriving the rights of the public at large to enjoy the burial ground which is meant for a particular purpose of cremation of the human beings who are passed away in whichever form it is i.e., practicing in the vicinity and therefore, this court in its considered view that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any kind of relief much less the relief now sought for, for

Permanent injunction

8.Therefore, when the property is not that of the Plaintiff and the

Defendants, even according to the case of the Plaintiff and the Defendants and when the Plaint Schedule property is the burial ground It is the duty of the

Government to see that the burial ground should be protected at the cost of the

Government at all times, in order to facilitate the honor of the mankind should be honored without any kind of hindrance from any section for whatever reason it is from that section in the society. It is the goal and object of the

Government to protect the honor of the mankind by protecting the very basic needs of the society and protecting the burial ground is also part and parcel of the Government. Therefore, it is in its considered view of the this court that

District Collector being the representative the State must appraise the facts to the Government represing by the Chief secretary of the Government and he

O.S.25/2013 Page 7 of 8

must take steps by mobilizing of all cadre of the lower rung of the departments working under him, so as to prevent the occupation of the burial ground as and when it comes to his notice as a trustee of the Public representing the state.. The set of facts that are mentioned in the Plaint and in the written statement and the evidence after going through by this court of the Plaintiff and the Defendants coupled with documents marked on either side, this court holds that the Plaintiff is not entitled to any kind of relief in the way of

Permanent Injunction. The Court by way of Permanent Injunction cannot jeopardize the rights of the third parties (by way of Permanent Injunction) over the Plaint Schedule property which is the part and parcel of the burial ground.

For the foregoing reasons the Issue is answered Negative to the Plaintiff.

In the result the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13th day of October, 2016.

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Jaggayyapeta

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS

P.W.1- Gunisetty Ramana. D.W.1 – Bhathula Parvathi. P.W.2- Gande Pullaiah. D.W.2 – M.Srinivasa Rao. P.W.3- K.Pitchaiah.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1- Letter in R.C.A. 385/2007. Ex.A2- Complaint Copy. Ex.A3- House tax receipt of D2. Ex.A4- Certified copy of the assessment to the D.No.5-36/10.

DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1 – List of beneficiaries issued by the Thasildar, Jaggaiahpet. Ex.B2 – Copy of the letter issued by the Municipality attested by the Thasildar. Ex.B3 – Attested copy of the beneficiaries list of the Commissioner. Ex.B4 – R.S.R copy. Ex.B5 – Proceedings of the Collector, Machilipatnam. Ex.B6 - Copy of the letter addressed by the Commissioner to the S.H.O, Jaggaiahpet.

O.S.25/2013 Page 8 of 8

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Jaggayyapeta //True Copy//

1

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VIJAYAWADA.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Friday, this the 25th day of October, 2019.

Calendar Case No.924/2019

BETWEEN:

Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhavanipuram PS, Vijayawada City.

AND

Grandhi Narayana Rao …. Complainant and Accused * * *

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following

::J U D G M E N T::

IN THE RESULT: Accused is present. He is examined as U/s. 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s. 270 IPC. he is pleaded guilty. Judgment pronounced vide separate judgment Accused is found guilty for the offence U/s. 270 IPC and he is convicted U/s.

252 Cr.P.C. and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000// IDSI for 6 months. The seized property Item Nos. 1,2,3,8,9,10,11,12,14,15,16,17,18 are ordered to be destroyed. Item

N. 4,5,6,7,15 and 19 electrical weighing machine, gas stows /2, Gas Cylinder /2, each one return to the accused. The police are specifically direction to destroy items 1,2,3,8,9,10,11,12,14,15,16,17,18 under video coverage in the presence of Food

Inspector or presence of Revenue officer of concerned such of Vijayawada Municipal

Corporation.

Typed by the Stenographer, Gr.III on my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25th day of October, 2019.

Sd/-XXXX

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF WITNESSES

-NIL-

Sd/-XXXXX

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VIJAYAWADA.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Friday, this the 25th day of October, 2019.

Calendar Case No.2060/2019

BETWEEN:

Sub Inspector of Police, II Town P.S.,Vijayawada

AND

Shaik Shameer and 8 others …. Complainant and Accused * * *

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following

::J U D G M E N T::

IN THE RESULT: Accused A.1 to a.9 are present. They are offence punishable

U/s. 353 r/w. 34 IPC. The accused pleaded guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 353 r/w.34 IPC. Judgment pronounced (Vide Separate Judgment). In the result the accused

A.1 to A.9 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/s. 353 r/w.34 IPC an they are convicted U/s. 252 Cr.P.C. The accused A.1 to A.9 are sentenced to pay a fine of

Rs.1000//(Rupees One Thousand Only) on failure to pay the payment of fine of

Rs.1000// in default of payment the accused A.1 to A.9 have to undergo S.I for Three months.

Typed by the Stenographer, Gr.III on my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25th day of October, 2019.

Sd/-XXXX

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF WITNESSES

-NIL-

Sd/-XXXXX

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

1

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VIJAYAWADA.

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. Friday, this the 25th day of October, 2019.

Calendar Case No.375/2019

BETWEEN:

I Town PS

AND

Devara Santha Kumari @ Santhi and another …. Complainant and Accused * * *

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and the matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following

::J U D G M E N T::

IN THE RESULT: Accused is examined U/S 239 Cr.P.C. Accused is found guilty for the offence U/S 411 IPC and they are qcquitted U/S 241 IPC. Considering the socio economic and rural back tground of accused, A1, A2 are sentenced to go under for SI for 2 months and to pay fine Rs.500// by each. IDSI 2 months. Remand period is already under gone is set of 2 months period and the same fine amount paid. Therefore accused are set at liberty forthwith.

Typed by the Stenographer, Gr.III on my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25th day of October, 2019.

Sd/-XXXX

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

LIST OF WITNESSES

-NIL-

Sd/-XXXXX

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada.