, Sri A.omkar, Excise Court

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE::

ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT: Sri A. Omkar,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

FAC III Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Ananthapuramu.

Monday, this the 28 th day of February, 2022.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 200 /2020

Janapati Kullayappa, aged 70 years, Senior Citizen, S/o Late Janapati Ramappa, Hindu, Permanent residence of H.No.04-1320-A, Vidyaranya Nagar, Papam Peta, Kalyandurg Road, New Town, Ananthapuramu City and District 515004. … Plaintif

Vs.

1. The Tahsildar, Office of the Mandal Revenue Office, HLC Colony, New Town, Ananthapuramu Town & District, Pin-515001.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Office of the R.D.O, DRDA Office Compound, Near Rythu Bazar, Ananthapuramu Town & District, Pin-515001.

3. The District Collector, Office of District Collectorate, Ananthapuramu Town & District, Pin – 515001. … Defendants.

* * * * *

This suit is came on 24.02.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Tuluva Shiva Prasad , Advocate for Plaintifand Defendant

No.1 to 3 having remained exparte, and after hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivers the following:

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

1.The suit is filed by the plaintif for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants, from their unnecessary interference by alienating/reassigning the suit schedule property pertaining to the plaintif’s patta, pattadar pass books and title deeds with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property and for other reliefs.

2

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

(a) The suit schedule property is an agricultural land in an extent of Ac.03-98 cents in Sy.No.200-3 situated within Kamaru Palli village fields,

Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal and District bounded by East : The agricultural land in Sy.No.236, West : The agricultural land in Sy.No.202, North : The agricultural land in Sy.No.200-2 and South : The agricultural land in

Sy.No.201.

(b) Originally, the plaint schedule property belongs to the

Government. One Janapati Ramappa, who is father of the plaintif being a landless poor person, on his application the defendants permitted him to cultivate the suit schedule property in the year 1960 itself. Since then, the said Janapati Ramappa with the help of his family members made the suit schedule property fit for cultivation by using huge amount and labour and they removed thorny bushes, rocks, pits. Later, he is cultivating the said land by raising sun-flower seeds, Ulava and other crops. On considering his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the then Tahsildar of Bukkarayasamudram Mandal issued D-Form patta and pattadar pass book in favour of Janapati Ramappa vide proceedings in D.Dis.No.716/71, dated 02.04.1962. Since then, the father of the plaintif has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by raising crops. He also paying property tax to the concerned authorities over the suit schedule property vide receipts dated 06.06.1978, 12.06.1983, 05.09.1991 and 03.02.1994 respectively. The groundnut crops are failed to raise in the said land and so, the plaintif has made an application to the Department of Land

Soil Conservation, Government of Andhra Pradesh, after due enquiry and inspection of the land, they issued report, dated 05.12.1992, bearing

Laboratory Serial No.10432 and 10433 reporting that, the suit schedule property land is not suitable for some crops.

3

(c)While so, on 15.12.1995 the said Janapati Ramappa died, leaving behind him, his only son i.e., plaintif as his legal heir, basing on his application, the defendants herein have made thorough enquiry, his name was also mutated in the Revenue Records and got issued pattadar passbooks and title deed in favour of the plaintif. Since then, he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property without any disturbance from the others. He is also paying property taxes to the concerned department. Recently, the defendants are trying to disturb the plaintif’s peaceful possession and enjoyment, by re-assigning the suit schedule property/land without any type of legal and valid grounds, as their earlier D-Form patta is in force. Then, the plaintif approached the defendants and submitted the written representations, dated 12.08.2015 and 04.11.2015 respectively by requesting them not to re-alienate the suit schedule property, which was allotted and assigned to him long back, but in vain.

(d) The defendants are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif with regard to the suit schedule property. The plaintif is being a poor person and senior citizen, he is unable to resist respondents high-handed acts. So, the plaintif is constrained to file the present suit against the defendants for the relief of grant of Permanent

Injunction restraining the defendants from unnecessary interference by alienating or re-assigning the suit schedule property.

3.The defendants No.1 to 3 appeared through the Assistant

Government Pleader, but failed to file the written statement on behalf of the defendants within the statutory period and remained exparte to the suit proceedings on 06.12.2021.

4.To prove his claim, the plaintif got examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A16.

4

5. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintif and perused the entire record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintif is entitled for the relief of

permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property against

the defendants, as prayed for?

7. POINT: -

Since the suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction, the plaintif has to establish that he has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing of the suit and that the defendants are trying to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

8.To prove the same, the plaintif got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A16. Ex.A1 is Original D-Form patta issued in the name of the father of the plaintif, dated 02.04.1962 vide D.Dis.No.716/71.

Ex.A2 is Original pattadar pass book issued by the defendants in the name of father of the plaintif. Ex.A3 to A6 are Original property tax receipts, dated 06.06.1978, 12.06.1983, 05.09.1991 and 03.02.1994 respectively. Ex.A7 is

Original soil testing certificate, dated 03.02.1994 stands in the name of the plaintif. Ex.A8 is Original land revenue record/possession certificate 1401 account of agriculture, dated 14.06.1993 stands in the name of the father of the plaintif. Ex.A9 is Original death certificate of father of the plaintif, dated 15.12.1995. Ex.A10 is Original title deed vide patta No.299 issued by the

Mandal Revenue Officer, Ananthapuramu in favour of the plaintif. Ex.A11 is

Original pattadar pass book issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer,

Ananthapuramu in favour of the plaintif. Ex.A12 is Adangal phani for fasli

No.1429 issued by the Tahsildar, Ananthapuramu obtained through Meeseva, 5

dated 06.11.2019. Ex.A13 is Twenty two photographs along with Compact

Disc. Ex.A14 is Originalregistered postal receipt and acknowledgment card,

dated 12.08.2015 and 13.08.2015. Ex.A15 is Office copy of registered notice,

dated 08.11.2019. Ex.A16 is Original registered postal receipts and

acknowledgment cards addressed to the defendants No.1 to 3, dated 16.11.2019 and 18.11.2019 respectively. The entries in Exs.A7, A10, A11 clearly disclose that the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Undisputedly,

Ex.A10 and A11 are the Original title deed and pattadar pass books, issued by the competent revenue authorities. So, the Court finds no reason to suspect the authenticity of those documents. As such, the Court holds that the contents of Ex.A10 and A11 establish that the plaintif is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as on the date of the suit.

9.The plaintif also got examined third party as PW2, who is neighbouring land owner to the suit schedule property, whose evidence corroborates the version of plaintif in all aspects.

10.Since the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, as well as the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A10 and A11 adduced by the plaintif remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendants, the Court finds no reason to discard the same. Therefore, the Court holds that the evidence of PW1 coupled with the documentary evidence(Ex.A10 and Ex.A11), clinchingly establishes that the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit and that the defendants are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over suit schedule property by re-assigning the suit schedule property to others. Hence, the Court feels that it is just and necessary to curb the acts of the defendants by granting injunction, otherwise, the plaintif will sufer irreparable loss and injury. Therefore, the 6

Court holds that the plaintif is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintif and against the defendants.

11. In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by granting

permanent injunction in favour of the plaintif and against the

defendants, restraining the defendants, from their unnecessary

interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintif

over suit schedule property without due process of law.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28 th day of February, 2022.

Sd/- A.Omkar,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, FAC III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS :

PW.1: Janapati Kullayappa. EXPARTE PW.2: Rege Musalanna.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original D-Form patta issued by the then Tahsildar, Bukkarayasamudram in favour of Janapati Ramappa, dated 02.04.1962 vide D.Dis.No.716/71.

Ex.A2: Original pattadar pass book issued by the Revenue Authorities in favour of Janapati Ramappa.

Ex.A3: Original property tax receipt, dated 06.06.1978.

Ex.A4: Original property tax receipt, dated 12.06.1983.

Ex.A5: Original property tax receipt, dated 05.09.1991.

Ex.A6: Original property tax receipt, dated 03.02.1994.

Ex.A7: Original soil testing certificate, dated 03.02.1994.

Ex.A8: Original land revenue record/possession certificate 1401 account of agriculture, dated 12.06.1993.

7

Ex.A9: Original death certificate of father of the plaintif, dated 15.12.1995.

Ex.A10: Original title deed vide patta No.299 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ananthapuramu in favour of the plaintif.

Ex.A11: Original pattadar pass book issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ananthapuramu in favour of the plaintif.

Ex.A12: Adangal phani for fasli No.1429 issued by the Tahsildar, Ananthapuramu obtained through Meeseva, dated 06.11.2019.

Ex.A13: Twenty two photographs along with Compact Disc.

Ex.A14: Original registered postal receipt and acknowledgment card, dated 13.08.2015.

Ex.A15: Office copy of registered notice, dated 08.11.2019.

Ex.A16: Original registered postal receipts and acknowledgment cards addressed to the defendants No.1 to 3, dated 16.11.2019 and 18.11.2019 respectively.

FOR DEFENDANTS: -Nil-

Sd/- A.Omkar,

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu, FAC III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

In the Court of :Spl.JFCM for trial of Cases Under A.P Prohibition and Excise Act

cum III Addl. Jr. Civil Judge

Case No. :PRC/0000039/2021 STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH State Inspector of Police, Atmakuru Circle Vs Meenuga Jayakrishna

Date : 02-03-2022

Business: Accused called absent. Orders pronounced VSO. In the result, the case against accused is committed to the Honourable

Sessions Court, Ananthapuramu under section 209(a) of

Criminal Procedure Code , for the offence punishable under Section 302 is exclusively triable by the Honourable Court of

Sessions. The office is directed to submit the case records,

case property and other material if any, to the Honourable

Sessions Court, Ananthapuramu. Accused is directed to

appear before the Honourable Sessions Court, Anantapuramu, after receipt of summons. Nature of Disposal: COMMITTED TO SESSIONS Disposal Date: 02-03-2022 Spl.JFCM for trial of Cases Under A.P Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Addl. Jr. Civil

Judge

In the Court of :Spl.JFCM for trial of Cases Under A.P Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Addl.

Jr. Civil Judge Case No. :OS/0000181/2022 Canara Bank rep by its Authorized Officer Sr.Manager, Garladinne Branch, Ananthapuramu Vs Ganga Narayana Reddy

Date : 04-03-2022

Business: The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed a memo stating that the present suit was settled out of court and he is intending to not press the same. Memo is recorded. In view of the above settled memo and on considering the submissions made by plaintiff counsel, the present suit is dismissed as settled out of court. No order as to costs. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED AS SETTLED OUT OF COURT Disposal Date: 04-03-2022 Spl.JFCM for trial of Cases Under A.P Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Addl. Jr.

Civil Judge

In the Court of :Spl.JFCM for trial of Cases Under A.P Prohibition and Excise Act cum III

Addl. Jr. Civil Judge Case No. :OS/0000567/2020 Punnapu Lakshmi Narayana Vs B. Sasidhar Reddy

Date : 04-05-2022

Business: In view of order in IA 154/22 this suit is advanced from 20.6.2022. to today 4.5.2022. The suit is coming for W/s. At this stage plaintiff counsel filed memo not pressing the suit same is recorded. Hence suit is dismissed as not pressed. Nature of Disposal : DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED Disposal Date: 04-05-2022 Spl.JFCM for trial of Cases Under A.P Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Addl. Jr.

Civil Judge

In the Court of :Spl.JFCM for trial of Cases Under A.P Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Addl.

Jr. Civil Judge Case No. :OS/0200765/2016 Dasari Ramakrishna Vs Dasari Lakshmi Narayana

Date : 24-02-2022

Business: The suit is coming for framing of issues. At this stage plaintiff counsel filed memo not pressing the suit as matter is settled out of court. Hence, memo is recorded and suit is dismissed as matter settled out of court.. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED AS SETTLED OUT OF COURT Disposal Date: 24-02-2022 Spl.JFCM for trial of Cases Under A.P Prohibition and Excise Act cum III Addl. Jr.

Civil Judge