CRP/5888/2010 of Marpu Mahender Reddy Vs The AP Bhoodan Yagna Board on 31 December 2010

COMMON ORDER:

Though the petitioners in these four Civil Revision Petitionsare different, the respondent is common and though the suitsinvolved in these four cases are different, the impugned orders inall the cases were with reference to the pendency of W.P.No.323of 2008 before this Court. As all the revisions involved identicalquestions in controversy, they are being disposed of by thiscommon order.

In W.P.No.323 of 2008 on the file of this Court, the fourrevision petitioners and 27 others sought for declaration of the action of the District Collector, Nalgonda, in declaring the lands inSy.Nos.219/11 to 219/18 and 219/25 of Nemergomula village,Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District as Bhoodan land as illegaland to consequently set aside the same. The claim of the writpetitioners is that Ac.301.19 guntas in Sy.No.219 in question wasoriginally allotted to Dharawath Chokla, Sandulla Rajanna,Venkanna Uppala, Madasani Pochaiah and Somala DakyaLambada and others on payment of market value by the DistrictCollector in proceedings dated 24-2-1956. The writ petitionersclaimed that Ac.190.00 guntas were allotted to Dharavath Choklaout of the said land with mutation and implementation in therevenue records being effected as a consequence and pattadarpass books being issued in favour of the allottees. The writpetitioners 1 to 25 claimed to be the legal representatives ofDharavath Chokla and writ petitioners 1 to 15 claimed to havebeen entered as such in the revenue records. They claimed thatthe land in Sy.Nos.219/11, 219/12, 219/13, 219/14 and 219/25 wasalienated in favour of writ petitioners 26 to 31 about 15 yearsearlier with possession being delivered to them. The writpetitioners claimed that while so, Bhoodan Yagna Board applied formutation and issuance of pattas to the beneficiaries for allotmentof Ac.103.68 cents in Sy.No.219/5 by the Board based on thesurvey report of the Assistant Director, Survey and Settlement,Nalgonda. The writ petitioners submitted representations againstthe same to the Tahsildar, Bibinagar on 23-4-2006 and theyinformed that the survey by the Assistant Director was withoutnotice and intimation. The Tahsildar, Bibinagar found on enquiryand on perusal of the records that only Ac.10.00 is existing inSy.No.219/5 as claimed by the writ petitioners and then theCollector, Nalgonda appears to have issued the impugnedproceedings to the Assistant Director of Survey and Settlementdeclaring the lands in question as Bhoodan land. When even theBoard claims only Sy.No.219/5, the District Collector on assumptions and presumptions declared Ac.108.50 cents to beBhoodan land. Therefore, the writ petitioners approached the HighCourt with the writ petition.

Conclusion

The revision petitioners filed O.S.Nos.297, 298, 296 and299 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir,claiming a permanent injunction in respect of the respective piecesof land claimed to be in their possession against the AndhraPradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board/respondent in the revision petitionson the self-same allegations and contending that the respondent istrying to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of theirrespective lands under the guise of a false sale deed and theproceedings of the District Collector. The suits are pendingadjudication and the Bhoodan Yagna Board is resisting the suitsclaiming the land of 103 acres in Sy.No.219/5 to have beenpurchased by the Board under a registered Sale deed No.424/1977dated 29-12-1976 from Smt. K. Rajeswari Devi since when theBoard was in possession.

While so, the revision petitioners filed identical applicationsbefore the trial Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the trialCourt under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grantsufficient time to adduce evidence in their respective suits tilldisposal of W.P.No.323 of 2008 in which an order of status quowas granted against the parties in respect of the suit lands. Therespondent opposed the request on the ground that it was inpursuance of the orders of the High Court that CMAs weredisposed of by the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, concerning thegrant of interim injunction pending the suits directing to dispose ofthe suits on merits within two months from the date of its ordersand any protraction of the proceedings to enable grabbing ofproperty by the revision petitioners should be avoided.

The trial Court in identical orders noted that all the four suits were posted for trial and in WPMPNo.334 of 2008, dated 8-1-2008,order of status quo was granted on a prayer not to effect anymutation of the lands. While status quo concerning mutationshould be maintained by virtue of the said orders, the High Courtdid not stay the proceedings in these suits pending disposal of thewrit petition and as the suits are only for perpetual injunctionssimpliciter, which have to be adjudicated on the basis of oral anddocumentary evidence of both parties concerning the possessionof the respective suit properties, the parties need not await adecision on the aspect of the title in the writ petition. The trialCourt also considered the relief sought for to be vague, the matterinvolved in the writ petition to be not concerned with the disposalof the suits and the request to be untenable in the face of thedirection from the Senior Civil Judge to dispose of the suitspreferably within two (2) months, more so, in the absence of anydirection from the High Court itself. It also observed that there isno provision under the Code of Civil Procedure to grant timeindefinitely in the absence of any stay order by the AppellateCourt. Consequently, the trial Court dismissed the fourapplications without costs.

Identical grounds were raised against the said orders by therevision petitioners contending that the spirit and object of inherentpower under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure will bedefeated, if the impugned orders are not interfered with. As astatus quo order was passed by the High Court in W.P.No.323 of2008 and as the proceedings of the District Collector declaring thelands to be Bhoodan land are in question in the writ petition, anydetermination of the suits before the determination of the writpetition will result in miscarriage of justice and the absence of anydirection from the High Court is immaterial. Hence, the revisionpetitioners sought for reversing the said orders.

Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the revisionpetitioners and Sri N. Naveen Kumar, learned standing counsel forthe respondent are heard at length and the matters are beingdisposed of at the stage of admission with consent.

The point for consideration in all the four revisions is as towhether the further proceedings in the suits should stand stayedtill disposal of the writ petition?

All the four suits are admittedly for a permanent injunctionsimpliciter against interference by the respondent with thepossession and enjoyment of the respective plaintiffs over therespective suit lands and it is well settled that in a suit for mereinjunction, the question of title may arise only for incidental andancillary determination, while the main question in controversy tobe decided would be lawful possession of the property claimed bythe date of the suit. The revision petitioners trace their claim topossession and enjoyment to allotment said to have been made bythe District Collector in favour of Dharawath Chokla on 24-2-1956,his legal representatives succeeding to the alleged land and therevision petitioners and 2 others purchasing portions of the landabout 15 years prior to filing of W.P.No.323 of 2008. Their claimto possession and enjoyment by the dates of filing of therespective suits is thus attempted to be claimed to be lawful. It istrue that the proceedings of the District Collector in question inW.P.No.323 of 2008 may have an adverse impact on the claims ofthe revision petitioners, but without going deeper into the questionsin controversy, which need to be determined either in the writpetition or in the suits, it will be suffice to note that the situationadmittedly does not fall under any express provision of the Codeof Civil Procedure including Section 10 thereof and the invocationof the inherent powers of the Civil Court alone can be the way formaking any such request for the revision petitioners. The respondent traces its claim through a registered Sale deed dated29-12-1976 from one Smt. K. Rajeswari Devi and the truth,genuineness and binding nature of the sale deed is questioned bythe writ petitioners. The trial Court granted an interim injunction infavour of respective revision petitioners obviously being primafacie satisfied about their claim of being in possession by thedates of respective suits which was confirmed in the respectiveCMAs and when the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, directed, whiledisposing of the appeals, the trial Court to dispose of the suitswithin two months, the trial Court could not have resorted to notproceeding with the trial in the suits and await the result of the writpetition even if the subject matter of both matters are overlapping.The direction in the CMAs to the extent of mandating the disposalof the suits within two months had become final without any furtherchallenge and the disposal of CMAs themselves was on thedirections of this Court. As the title to the properties is not theprimary question in issue in the suits and as such questions ariseonly for incidental determination, the compliance with thedirections of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, by the trial Court, theprotection of interests of the revision petitioners to have theirclaims adjudicated by the High Court in the writ petition and theprotection of interests of the respondent and the allottees underthe respondent have to be balanced without either permitting anyindefinite stay of proceedings in the suits or denying anopportunity for the revision petitioners to have the writ petitiondecided within a reasonable time. While the trial of the suits canbe permitted to go on, the revision petitioners can be afforded abreathing time by requesting the trial Court not to dispose of thesuits on merits finally within some specified reasonable time so asto enable the revision petitioners to request the High Courtappropriately for an expeditious disposal of the writ petition onmerits. Such a via-media course can be adopted, more so, whenthe result of the writ petition on merits will have some bearing on

appreciating the lawful nature of the possession claimed by therespective revision petitioners. The adjudication of the claim ofthe respondent to possession by itself or through its allottees willbe dependent on the success or failure of the writ petitioners inproving their possession and enjoyment by the dates of respectivesuits, more so, under a lawful claim.

Therefore, the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongirshall proceed with the trial of the respective suits in obedience tothe directions of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir in the respectiveCMAs, but may withhold its judgment on merits in these suits tillafter 28-2-2011 in the event of the trial in these suits beingcompleted before that date and the revision petitioners are atliberty to take appropriate steps in the meanwhile to haveW.P.No.323 of 2008 decided on merits by the High Court in themeanwhile. The Civil Revision Petitions are ordered accordinglywithout costs.

Date: 31-12-2010

_____________________

G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

Ksn