WA/1820/2008 of Khader Hussain Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, on 31 December 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMAand

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

WRIT APPEAL No.1820 of 2008

(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated11/09/2008 in WP NO : 24585 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.)

Between:Khader Hussain S/o. S.Meeram SahebC/o. G.Hussain, D.No.17/390-2-2-1-1, N.V.R.Veedhi,Madanapalli, Chittoor District.

..... APPELLANT

AND

1 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Madanapalli, Chittoor District 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Madanapalli, Chittoor District.....RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant : MR.P.JAGADISH CHANDRA PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following :

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA

and

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

ORAL JUDGMENT:(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma)

Heard Sri P. Jagadish Chandra Prasad, learned counsel appearingfor the appellant as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader,representing the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignments)appearing for the respondents.

2. This Writ Appeal is directed against the order, dated 11-09-2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court inW.V.M.P.No.3600 of 2005 in W.P.M.P.No.31601 of 2005 in W.P.No.24585of 2005 vacating the interim orders.

3. Appellant is the petitioner and respondents are the respondentsin the writ petition.

4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties arereferred to as per their array in the writ petition.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is no imminent need tovacate the interim order, dated 18-11-2005, passed by the learned singleJudge of this Court.

6. The learned single Judge, of course, having gone into the meritsof the case, vacated the interim order, dated 18-11-2005, directing tomaintain status quo as regards the possession of the land.

7. The petitioner is the purchaser of the land from the originalassignee under a registered sale deed, dated 01-06-1968 and subsequently, basing on the ‘no objection’ letter given by the originalassignee, DKT patta has been granted in favour of the petitioner. Thegrievance of the petitioner is that without any notice to the petitioner, therespondent authorities are taking steps to distribute the land to poorersections of the society.

8. Initially, by order, dated 18-11-2005, this Court granted interimorder of status quo. Subsequently, on the application filed by therespondents seeking vacation of the interim order, dated 18-11-2005, the learned single Judge recorded a finding that a perusal ofthe record and the averments contained in the pleadings of the parties,certainly an element of confusion is involved in the case. The learnedJudge also found that one Mr. K.S.Khader Saheb appears to be theoriginal assignee from whom the petitioner purchased the said land andhis name appeared in the order by which the land was resumed. Thelearned single Judge further found certain discrepancies in the impugnedorder, which was passed way back in the year 1994. However, perhaps,having regard to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by therespondents that the land was handed over to Housing Department inAugust, 2005 and the same was converted into plots and allotted toweaker sections and that foundations were also laid for 23 houses andfurther that there was no reply affidavit controverting the specificaverments, the learned single Judge vacated the interim order, dated 18-11-2005.

9. Even if we go by the impugned order of the learned single Judge,there is some amount of confusion. Unless the said confounding situationis totally removed from the mind of the Court, we are of the view that theinterim order, dated 18-11-2005, ought not have been vacated by the

learned single Judge merely basing on the averments made by therespondents that the land was handed over to Housing Department forconstruction of houses to weaker sections. This is also a verifiable fact.So, even according to the learned single Judge, when the facts are notvery clear from the pleadings, in our considered opinion, the learnedsingle Judge ought not have vacated the interim order.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, particularly if theaverment made by the respondents is found to be not correct, it would leadto unnecessary complications, in future. Therefore, in order to avert thatsituation, we feel it expedient to direct the respondents to maintain statusquo, as was originally granted on 18-11-2005, and the same shall be inforce till disposal of the writ petition.

11. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 11-09-2008, passed bythe learned single Judge in W.V.M.P.No.3600 of 2005 inW.P.M.P.No.31601 of 2005 in W.P.No.24585 of 2005 is set aside.

12. Registry is directed to post the writ petition for final hearing on16-02-2009, subject to part heard.

13. With the above observations and directions, the writ appeal isallowed, at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs.

________________________

JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA

__________________________

JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

31-12-2008.

Msr

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMAand THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

31-12-2008(Msr)