request for Govt. survey pending suits - In the circumstances, we direct the respondent authorities to conduct survey of the land in question afresh, after giving notice to both the parties. However, the result of such survey or any order that may be passed in that regard shall be subject to the outcome of the civil suits relating to the land in question, which are pending before the Civil Court.


THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA

                                                                                    

WRIT APPEAL NO.105 OF 2013



DATED:7.2.2013

Between:                                                                            

Kommareddy Padmanabhaiah                          …  Appellant

And


Garapati Chandra Sekhar                                … Respondent
and others



































THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA

WRIT APPEAL NO.105 OF 2012


JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

          This writ appeal is directed against the order dt.25.7.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in W.P. No.22689 of 2012.
          Respondent No.1 – writ petitioner filed the writ petition to declare the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein in not taking any action on the representation/application dt.24.4.2012 made by the writ petitioner for survey, demarcation and fixation of boundaries of the land admeasuring Ac.5.18 cents in Sy. No.110 of Yanamadala Village, Nuzvid Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary.
          The Hon’ble Single Judge, after considering the matter, disposed of the said writ petition by order dt.25.7.2012 directing respondent No.2 therein to take necessary steps on the application dt.24.4.2012 submitted by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.  It was further observed that if there is any ground for not conducting survey of the land, respondent No.2 shall communicate the same to the petitioner.
          Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order dt.25.7.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, this writ appeal is filed by the appellant, who is a third party to the writ petition, with the leave of this Court.
          Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The appellant herein was not made a party to the writ petition.  According to him, respondent No.1 - writ petitioner approached this Court by suppressing the fact of pending suits before Civil Court, relating to the subject lands, and obtained the impugned order. 
In the circumstances, we direct the respondent authorities to conduct survey of the land in question afresh, after giving notice to both the parties.  However, the result of such survey or any order that may be passed in that regard shall be subject to the outcome of the civil suits relating to the land in question, which are pending before the Civil Court.
          The writ appeal stands disposed of on the above terms.  No costs.




________________________
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, CJ




_____________________
                                                                          B.N. RAO NALLA, J      
7.2.2013

bnr

         








Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515