Allowed

Dt.Collector Mhabubnagar v. R.Ramakrishna Reddy

Telangana HC10 Oct 2022SA/885/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the High Court of Telangana held that a simplicitor injunction suit challenging eviction under the Land Encroachment Act is not maintainable due to the bar imposed by Section 14. The First Appellate Court's grant of injunction was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and decree in A.S.No.6 of 1999 set aside; suit filed in O.S.No.17 of 1996 dismissed.

Dt.Collector Mhabubnagar Vs R.Ramakrishna Reddy — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[3216 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN

¶6

SECOND APPEAL NO: 885 OF 2000

¶7

Appeal under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 07 tO7 ]2OOO made in AS No.06 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy preferred against the Judgment and decree in OS No.1 7 of 1 996 dated 06/10/1 999 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The District Collector, Mahabubnagar.

¶10

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Wanaparthy.

¶11

...APPELLANTS

¶12

AND

¶13

R.Ramakrishna, (died) per LRs 2 to 4)

¶14

R.lVladhusudhan Reddy, S/o. R.Ramakrishna Reddy,

¶15

R.Rajeshwar Reddy, S/o. R.Ramakrishna Reddy,

¶16

Sangireddy Nalini, W/o. Sangireddy Surender Reddy, (RR2 to 4 brought on record as LRs of deceased sole Respondent vide Court Order dated O5logl22 in lA No.3 of 2022)

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

For the Appellants : GP FOR ARBITRATION

¶19

For the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI PASHAM MOHITH, Advocate

¶20

The Court delivered the following : JUDGMENT

¶21

1'IIE IION'BI,E SIII .IUS'I'ICE M. LAXN{AN

¶22

SIiCOND APPL,\t, No.8tt5 OF 2000

¶23

JIIDGi\llrN'l':

¶24

l. The present :rppeal has been directed against^judgment and decree dated 07.07.2000 passed in A.S.No.06 of 1999 by the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, where in and whercby the^judgment and decree dated 06.10. 1999 passed in O.S.No.l7 of 1996 by the Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparlhy, was rcversed, and thc suit was decreed.^'fhe said suit was llled lbr perpetual inir:nction against the appellants herein.

¶25

The present appeal is at tlie instance of the defendants. For convenience, the ranks ol- the parties as they were referred in the suit,^is maintained.

¶26

The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiff is that, he is having patta lands in S1,.No.l0/B and l1lB of Ankur Village and also lands in Sy.No.65/AA. 73lA and 73lAA of Balijapalli Village. For the purpose of better enjoyment o1 such properties, on the assurance of the MRO that the patta rvould be granted to him, he took possession of the Ac.0.05 guntas of land in Sy.No.l44. The said Sy.No.144 consists of total extent of Ac.48-17guntas and the said land belongs to Covemment. Believing, the assurance of the MII.O, the plaintiff dug a bore-well by

¶27

¶28

MI,,J SA No.BS5 of^2OOO

¶29

irrvcsting an arrlount ol'Its.34,400/- and his application lor assignnrent was perlding. Pcnding such assignment, the defbndants issued noticc under the Land Encrcachrnent Act lbr eviction. l herefbrc, hc fitcd thc present surt.

¶30

The case of the defendants is that the plaintifl himsclf admits that the suit land is Government land he has no right to continue in possession and the suit is not maintainable challenging the notices for eviction, and prayed to dismiss the suit.

¶31

The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, lrarred the lollowing l ssues:

¶32

" I. Wether the plaintiffis entitledfor permanent injunction as prayed for?

¶33

To what relief ? "

¶34

The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined PWs.l to 3 and relied upon Ex.Al to A5. On behalf of defendants, Dw.l was examined.

¶35

The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, particularly, Section 14 of the Land Encroachment Act, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffpreferred first appeal. The 1" Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and granted injunction, giving liberty to the defendants to evict tl.re plaintiff by

¶36

]I,I I-,J SA No.885 of 20OO

¶37

lbllou,ing duc process ol'larv. Aggrieved by the samc, the present Second

¶38

Appeal is tiled by thc cle l'cntlants

¶39

1 This Court fi'arned the fbltowing substantial question of law: Vfkether the./indings of thc First Appellate Court in reversing the

¶40

judgment ancl ,lccrec oJ the trial Court in spite of Section l4 of the Land Encroocltntent Act, is sustainable?

¶41

The learned counsel f,or the appellants/defendants submitted that when rrotice under Land llncroachrnent Act was issued for eviction, the parly cannot maintain a suit lbr ir{unction simplicitor except the suit lbr declaration and consequential injunction and under Section l4 of Land Encroachment Act there is an embargo for granting such relief of injunction. The learned counsel fbr the appellants also relied upon a decision of this Llourl in Klraka China Ramayamma Vs. State Government of A.P. antl anotherl.

¶42

l'he learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submits that the First Appellate Court by giving liberry to the defendants to follow the due procedure of law for eviction ol plaintiff, granted injunction keeping in view of the application of the plaintifffor assignment of the suit land.

¶43

I 1:oo+; : eLT zzs

¶44

ML,.J SA No.385 o1 2OOO

¶45

¶46

In light ol'thc said submissions it is relevant to re I'er Section l4 of

¶47

thc Land E,ucroachnrcut Act. r,',hich rcads as tbllou,s

¶48

"Sectiott 14 : Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil^{Courts :- No} dccision ntade or order pa.ssed or proceeding takert b1'any officer ot' outhorit.v- or the State Got,ernmettt under^lhi-s Act, rtot being a decision, order or proceeding affecting the title to the land of a person, shall be called fu cluestiott before a Civil Court in any suit, application or other proceeding and no injunction shall be granted by any Court in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be^- taken by strch fficer or authority or State Government in presence of any power conferred by or under this Act.^"

¶49

I l. lt is also relevant to refer to the^judgment passed by our own High Court in thc case of Karaka China Ramayamnra Vs. Statc Government of A.P. and another (cited supra). Para No.7 of the said judgment reads as under:

¶50

"Section 14 of the Land Encroachment Act ousts the jurisdiction of the Civil Court for granting an injunctiort except in cases where declaration of title in respect of the land in respect of which notice was issued is sought. It is nctt in dispute tlnt the suit is filed intmediately after the appellant is served with Exs.A.l and A.2 notices by the Government. Since the appellant is not seeking a declaration of her title to the suit land, and since there is nothing on record to show that the appellant has been in long standing possession of the suit land prior to issuance of Exs.A.l and A.2 notices by the respondents, in viev,of Section I4 of the Land Encroachment Act, the suit for mere injunction filed by the appellant is not maintainable, and so I find no grounds to interfere with the decision of the lower Appellate Court that the suit is not maintainable."

¶51

Looking at the above provision as well as the judgrnent rendered

¶52

by this Court, the simplicitor injunction suit is not maintainable when the

¶53

Mt-.., SA No.885 ot 2O00

¶54

¶55

0 d

¶56

proceedings lbi cvicLion were initlated undcr tht: Land Encroachment Act. Hot,cver, thc allr:cted pafty nray institute a suit fbr declaration. In the prescnt casc, undisputedly the plaintiff is in possession of Government land u'hich is owned by the defendants, and his possession was lor the last l0 years prior to institution of the suit. His furlher case is that he is in possession of the suit land on the strength of assurance given by the MRO that such land would be granted patta. According to the plaintiff, the application fbr assignnrent is pending.

¶57

The first Appellate Court rvitlrout looking into the action taken by the delendants uncler the l-ancl Errcroachment Act, granted injunction giving liberty to clcf-endants to cvicl the plaintiff by following due process of law. This Court is unable to understand what the learned First Appellate Judge rneant "by following due process of law." The proceedings are initiated under Land Encroachment Act. It complies the due process of law. Section l4 of the said Act bars the suits challenging the eviction except by way of filing suit for declaration. The First Appellate Court ignored the prohibition contained under Section 14 of the Act and also the lau, laid down by this Court, and granted injunction by reversing the vvell considered .judgnrent of the trial Court.

¶58

6 ML,J SA No.8B5 of 2000

¶59

-.-

¶60

14.^'fherclbre. the judgrncnt ol the First Appellate Couft sut'fers fl'our

¶61

perversity and rcquires to be set aside.

¶62

Accordingly, tl.ris second appeal is allowed by setting aside the irnpugncd^judgnrcnt and decree in A.S.No.6 of 1999 dated 07.07.2000 passed by the Seniol Civil Judge Court, Wanaparlhy. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.17 of 1996 is dismissed. No co5ts.

¶63

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shatt

¶64

stand closed.

¶65

Sd/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'

¶66

t SECTION OFFICER

¶67

¶68

The Senior Civil Judge,^Wanaparthy.

¶69

Two CCs to GP for Arbitration,^{High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad (OUT)

¶70

Oire CC to Sri Pasham^{Mohith,Advocate} [OPUC]

¶71

Two CD Copies

Nx-

HIGH COURT

DArED:1011012022

(- STATE O3
t, <<br>t4 {
c L t'tB ?S3
.*:"

JUDGMENT

SA.No.885 of 2000

SA ALLOWED.

,
Q^>f
*./^AS

Dt.Collector Mhabubnagar v. R.Ramakrishna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dt.Collector Mhabubnagar v. R.Ramakrishna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ramesh Gandhi Vs Smt. R. Swathi

The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. P.Anuradha and 2 Others

M Agro Exports, Guntur Dist Vs B Kalyani, R.R.Dist and Others

Miss P.Suhar Latha Vs Sri Robert W Long

Nagubandi Pullaiah Vs Maduri Srinivasa Rao

Nannapaneni Rama Rao Vs Smt. Nannapaneni Soubhagyamma