Dismissed

Ghantasal Venkanna Babu alias Venkata Syamala Rao, v. Jayamangala Savithri

Telangana HC30 Apr 2013CRP/193/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an execution application regarding the implementation of a Lok Adalat agreement concerning land exchange. The court held that the appellant, having signed the award, was estopped from raising objections during execution and that the order did not suffer from jurisdictional error.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs.

Ghantasal Venkanna Babu alias Venkata Syamala Rao, Vs… — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.193 OF 2013

¶3

Dated: 30.04.2013

¶4

Between:

¶5

Ghantasal Venkanna Babu @ Venkata Syamala Rao … Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

1. Jayamangala Savithri and others. .. Respondents

¶8

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶9

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.193 OF 2013

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

The 1^st respondent herein filed O.S.No.68 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kaikalur against the respondents 2 & 3 and the revision petitioner seeking a decree for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property which is stated to be a fish tank situated in Penchikalamarru Village, Kaikalur Mandal. However the parties entered into a compromise and in pursuance thereof an award was passed by the Lok Adalat Bench, Kaikalur on 1.10.2011 with the following conditions which were agreed to by both

¶12

the parties.

¶13

(i) The Defendants shall not claim any manner of rights against the lands of the plaintiff.

¶14

(ii) The Defendants do cultivate the lands of the plaintiff without any lease upto 29-02-2012.

¶15

(iii) The plaintiff’s lands are situated in three places in common tank, hence the land in eastern side shall be handed over to the plaintiff and exchange deed is to be executed. The plaintiff has to bear the expenditure for execution of exchange deed, survey and formation of bund. After formation of bund the first defendant shall handover the land to the plaintiff.

¶16

(iv) If there are any decrees, E.Ps, attachments against the exchanged land the first defendant shall handover the land to the plaintiff.

¶17

(v) The plaintiff gave Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty Thousand only) to the first defendant on compromise and the first defendant received the said amount.

¶18

(vi) At the time of execution of Exchange Deed, if the land is more in link documents, the extra land has to be given to the plaintiff.

¶19

(vii) The son-in-law by name Saidu Gopi S/o Pandurangarao, resident of Chintapadu, shall not

¶20

interfere in the remaining lands of the first defendant and also family affairs of defendant.

¶21

Thereafter, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein filed E.P.No.34 of 2012 with a prayer to appoint a Commissioner to separate the Eastern portion of Ac.2-40 cents of fish tank with the help of the Mandal Surveyor and for execution of exchange deed in her favour. The said execution petition was disposed of on 22.08.2012 by the court below with directions as under:

¶22

(a) That the E.P. is allowed and the 1^st J.Dr. is directed to execute exchange deed in favour of D.Hr. with meets and bounds.

¶23

(b) Sri M. Satyanarayana Raju, Advocate, Kaikalur is appointed as Commissioner to measure the eastern side portion with the help of Mandal Surveyor and form the bund.

¶24

(c) His fees is fixed at Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) which shall be directly payable by the D.Hr.

¶25

(d) Issue commission warrant on payment process.

¶26

Aggrieved by the said order, the JDrs. 2 & 3 i.e., the respondent No.3 herein and the revision petitioner filed CRP No.4632 of 2012 alleging that there was no notice to them before passing the said order. This Court dismissed CRP No.4632 of 2012 by order dated 28.11.2012 holding that there was no need to give any notice in the execution proceedings to JDrs. 2 & 3 and the notice issued to JDr No.1 itself was sufficient since as per the award the JDr No.1 alone had to execute the exchange deed.

¶27

However, the revision petitioner/JDr No.3 filed a fresh application being EA No.217 of 2012 pleading that if the award is executed he would be left with no inlet and outlet to his portion of fish tank and that even at the time of settlement before Lok Adalat he was reluctant to agree for the conditions, but he was constrained to heed to the suggestions and advices of the elders. It was also pleaded that after the award by the Lok Adalat it came to light that there was no outlet to his portion of tank which is situated abutting the portion awarded to DHr. Thus it was prayed to make an enquiry with regard

¶28

to his right of easement of inlet and outlet to the fish tank that fell to his share.

¶29

After hearing both the parties, the Court below dismissed E.A.No.217 of 2012 by order dated 4.1.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is filed by JDr.No.3.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶31

As noticed above, the suit was compromised between the parties and in terms of the settlement, the Lok Adalat passed an award. The revision petitioner/JDr.No.3 is admittedly a party to the said settlement and the award was signed by him also. Therefore it is not open to the revision petitioner to re-agitate the issue and challenge the terms and conditions of the award. At any rate, CRP No.4632 of 2012 filed by him was dismissed by this Court making it clear that the J.Drs. 2 & 3 were estopped from claiming that by implementing the award their interest would be effected in one way or the other. This Court also made it clear that the works are to be carried out adhering to the directions given in the award/EP proceedings. Admittedly the said order also has become final.

¶32

In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is not open to the revision petitioner to raise any further objection for execution of the award. The easementary rights now sought to be claimed by the revision petitioner at the stage of execution proceedings are untenable. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner namely KUNJU KUNJU CHANDRAN v. VELOUTHAKUNJU RAGHAVAN AND ANOTHER^[1] , BHAVAN VAJA AND OTHERS v. SOLANKI HANUJI KHODAJI MANSANG AND ANOTHER^[2] , KARTIC MANJHI v. BANAMAL I^[3] and CHHANGA SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA^[4] and M.P. SHREEVASTAVA v. MRS. VEENA^[5] are all clearly distinguishable on facts and the ratio laid down therein has no application to the case on hand.

¶33

Therefore, the Court below was justified in dismissing

¶34

E.A.No.217 of 2012. The order under Revision does not suffer from any error in exercise of jurisdiction vested under law and therefore the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever.

¶35

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

¶36

Consequently the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.

¶37

_____________

¶38

G.ROHINI, J

¶39

Date: 30.04.2013 GBS

¶40