Remanded

Maloth Mangya and another v. Maloth Balaji

Telangana HC21 Mar 2023CRP/811/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a civil revision, upheld the remand of an interlocutory application for an ad-interim injunction. The court held that the lower court incorrectly granted the injunction without considering a show cause notice pending against the respondent and failing to provide reasons under Order XXXIX CPC, directing the lower court to dispose of the matter afresh.

What did the court decide?

Remanded I.A.No.1 of 2020 to the lower court to dispose of afresh after hearing both parties and considering document within three months.

Maloth Mangya and another Vs Maloth Balaji — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF IMARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 811 OF 2021

¶6

Revision filed under Anicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the order dated 19.04.2021 passed in I.A.No. I of 2020 in O.S.No.27 of 2O2O on the file of the Court of the Agent to Government (District Collector) at Mahabubabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

1 . I,4aloth Mangya, Sio. Tejya, Age. 65 years, Occ. Agriculture, R:/o. H.No- 1 1- 49, Sarvan Thanda, Chinna Kistapuram Village, Garla Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶9

Maloth A.jay, S/o. Mangya, Age. 42 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1'1-49, Sarvan Thanda, Chinna Kistapuram Village, Garla Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶10

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS

¶11

AND

¶12

Maloth Balaji, Sio. Ramji, Age 43 years, Occ. Agriculture, Ri/o. H.No.'1 1-47, Sarvan Thanda, Chinna Kistapuram Village, Garla Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

¶13

.,.RESPONDENT/PETITIONER / PLAINTIFF

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶15

Petition under Section 151 of CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in l.A.No. 1 of 2020 in O.S.No. 27 of 2020 dl. 1gt4t2}21 on the file of the Court of the Agent to Government (District Collector).at Mahabubabad.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶17

Petition under Section 15'l of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the Status quo orders granted in I.A.No.1 of 2021 on CRP No.B't 1of 2021 dated OGlO5l2O21 .

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri S. JAGADISH

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri PULLA RAO YELLANKI

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

! I I i I

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU

¶23

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.811 OF 2O2L

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the 1n petitioners, who are respondents/defendalts I.A.No.l of 2O2O in O.S.No.27 of 2O2O on the file of the Agent to the Government (District Collector), Mahabubabad, under Article 227 of Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the Order dated 19.O4.'2O2\ whereunder the Court below granted ad-interim injunction in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, on the following grounds:

¶26

The Court below i.e., Agent to the Government (District Collector) under A.P.Agency Rules, 1924 entertained the main suit and while disposing of I.A.No. I of 2O2O,learned Agent failed to consider the notice that was issued by Tahsildhar, Garla Mandal, bearing RC.No.8/577 /2O2O, dated 13.07.2O2O

¶27

¶28

-r

¶29

wherein it was clearly mentioned that the revision petitioners herein v,/erc in possession of Ac.O.33 Guntas of agricultural land in Survey No.398 out of total extent of Ac. 1.03 Guntas and also found that Ac.O. 10 Guntas of land was developed as residential area and a proposal was made to remove the name of the resporedent/ plaintiff from the revenue records along with two others as they t.e re wrongly given pattadhar pass books in the above stated survey number. The petitioners further stated that the respondent/plaintiff without disclosing the issuance of show cause notice approached the Agent to Government and obtained ad-interim injunction. The petitioners have claimed that show cause notice was issued pursuant to a thorough enquiry and based on the report of Deputy Surveyor, Village Revenue Officer and Mandal Girdhavar dated 07.O7.2O2O. The respondent/plaintiff liled pahani, which he obtained through mee-seva showing the narne of the respondent

¶30

¶31

¶32

as pattadhar which, in fact, sought to be rectified by the authorities. Therefore, the petitioners have ciaimed that the Court below without proper appreciation of the facts and by ignoring the show cause notice, ordered an ad-interim injunction, which is contrar5r to the material on record.

¶33

The petitioners have also claimed that they are in posscssion ol the agricultural land which fact was clearly revcaled in the show cause notice. Therefore, the Court below went^'rrrrong in holding there is a prima facie^{case and balanceof conveniencein favour of the} respondent/plaintiff and an ad-interim injunction was granted based on e-pattadhar pass book, which is sought to be rectified by the revenue authorities. Therelore, the petitioners have claimed that the Court below did not record any evidence nor any documents are marked before disposing interlocutory application. Therefore, sought for setting aside the impugned

Order.

!-r

As could be seen from the material placed before this Court, it is quite clear that the respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.27 of 2O2O and in that suit filed an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.) and sought for injunction in respect of agricultural iand to an extent of Ac.O.17 Guntas in Survey No.39B/ I /2 and Ac.O.13 Guntas in Survey No.39Bl2/1 at Mulakanuru Revenue Village. As per the aflldavit filed in support ol the said petition, the respondent/plaintilf has claimed title over the propert5r and submitted pattadhar pass book and title deed, which were issued in his favour. The petitioners herein being respondents in the above referred interlocutory application and defendants in the main suit filed a detailed counter incorporating all the averments which they have made in the grounds of this Civil Revision Petition and sought for dismissal of the petition. Learned Agent to the Government

¶39

¶40

¶41

disposed of I.A.No. I ol 2O2O by a cryptic Order which

¶42

reads as foilows:

¶43

"The case heard arguments in 1.A.,

¶44

The plaintiJf has filed e-PPB in his fauour.

¶45

The only piece of document to shown his claim is a simple settlement deed, that too uithout mention of description of propertg (Sg.No., extent, etc.).

¶46

Defendants are relging on a notice issued bg the Tahsildhar for issue for PPB in his fauour. This, in no uaA supercedes the e-PPB uhich ls still continuing in name of plaintiff.

¶47

Therefore, 1.A., granted in fauour of plaintffi as he has a prima facie case and balance of conuenience, in uieu of e-PPB."

¶48

Heard both the parties.

¶49

Now the point that would emerge for determination is:

¶50

1. Whether the Order passed by the Agent to the Government is incorrect, not in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Order XXXX, Rules 1 and2 of C.P.C., if so, whether the same is liable to be set aside ?

¶51

To what relief ?

\ t

.-rI

()

As per the :rverments made by thc parties in their respective af{rdavits and counter- alfidavits, it was specifically pleaded by the respondent\plaintiff that he has got pattadhar passbook and title deed whereas the petitioners have claimed that pursuant to al enquiry conducted by the revenue authorities, show cause notice was already issued to the re spondent/plaintiff and there was a proposal to remove the name of the respondent/plaintiff from the revenue records and for cancellation of the pattadhar passbook. As per the Order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition, it is very clear that learned Agent to the Government without considering the averments made in the counter affidavit and show cause notice and even without explaining the grounds or reasons under which the respondent/plaintiff can be granted an adinterim injunction, passed the impugned Order. 7. As per the Order, there is a reference about^the notice issued by Tahsildhar but learned Agent to^the

-r

Government dicl not explain as to hou, the same can be discarded passed a brief order, which is certainly not in accordance with the provisions under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners ancl the respondent have informed that subsequent to the impugned Order, there ts no progress in the main suit, which was filed about three years ago. There is no linding about the documents.

¶60

After carelul examination of the entire material placed before this Court, this Court is of the considered view that it is^just and necessary to remand the matter to the Court below with a direction to dispose of the interlocutory application afresh after hearing both the parties and after considering the documents produced by the petitioners as well as the respondent.

¶61

Under the circumstances narrated hereinbefore, this Civil Revision petition is disposed of, remanding I.A.No. I of 2O2O in O.S.No.27 of 2O2O to learned Agent

¶62

¶63

to the Government (District Collector), Mahabubabad, with a direction to dispose ol the same afresh after hearing the arguments of both the parties and after considering the material documents that may be produced by the parties to the petition. Further, learned Agent shall dispose of the said interlocutory application within a period of three (3) month from the date of receipt of a copy ol this Order

¶64

Pending miscellaneous appiications, if any, shali

¶65

stand closed. No costs.

¶66

SD/. K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶67

//TRUE COPY// sEcroN 6rrtcen

¶68

To,

¶69

The Agent to Govemment^(District Collector) at^Mahabubabad.

¶70

One CC to Sri S. JAGADISH, Advocate [OPUC]

¶71

One CC to Sri PULLA RAO YELLANKI, Advocate IOPUC]

¶72

Two CD Copies

Njb

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10312023

ORDER

CRP.No.811 of 2021

1 l{ E. 14 /(
(
3 1z APR ton t
/
* D

¶80

DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION.

¶81

G\w4 bo--

¶82

.taryd'3

Maloth Mangya and another v. Maloth Balaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maloth Mangya and another v. Maloth Balaji

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Chandra Mouli Vs K Suguna

Smt. a. Taramma and 2 others Vs Smt. a. Manjulaand 3 others

Sri. Cherukupally Prabhakar Vs Smt. Cherukupally Santhoshini

Y.Babu Guru Vs Y.Jagannadham and 2 others

M/s. Addsun Health Care Vs Bion Therapeutics India Private Limited

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Pilli Yellamma