Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 = declare the action of the respondent in issuing notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 dated 30.04.2012, as illegal and arbitrary as there is injunction orders against the Tahsildar in a suit pending in court .= under the guise of the order of temporary injunction, the petitioner is proceeding with the construction. It is not for this Court to go into the question whether or not the petitioner herein is justified in proceeding with the construction, as these are all matters which are subject matter of examination either in the Revision to be filed by the respondent or in the proceedings initiated under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Suffice to observe that any construction, which the petitioner may make, would always be subject to the outcome of the proceedings initiated by the respondent under the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

published in http://hc.ap.nic.in/csis/WP&mno=6024&year=2013
WP 6024 / 2013

WPSR 32314 / 2013
PETITIONERRESPONDENT
SUNKARA VENATESWARLU, HYDERABAD  VSTAHASILDAR, HYDERABAD
PET.ADV. : VENKAT REDDY DONTHI REDDYRESP.ADV. : GP FOR REVENUE
SUBJECT: ENCROACHMENTDISTRICT:  HYDERABAD
 published in http://164.100.12.10/hcorders/orders/2013/wp/wp_6024_2013.html
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
WRIT PETITION No.6024 of 2013
ORDER:
The relief sought for in this writ petition is to declare the action of the respondent in issuing notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 dated 30.04.2012, as illegal and arbitrary.
 The petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.263 of 2012 before the XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against the Tahsildar with regards the subject land seeking permanent injunction. He filed I.A.No.379 of 2012 seeking temporary injunction. As  the said I.A. was dismissed by the Learned XI Junior Civil Judge, the petitioner preferred C.M.A.No.18 of  2012  and the learned
I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad, by his order  in C.M.A.No.18 of 2012 dated 19.12.2012, granted temporary injunction and allowed the C.M.A.  
The order passed by the Learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad dated 19.12.2012 was more than eight months after the notice  under Section 7 of the Act was issued on 30.04.2012.
 While Sri Venkata Reddy Donthi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, though the petitioner had submitted a reply to the notice under Section 7 of the A.P.Land Encroachments Act, 1905 and despite an order of injunction having been granted against the respondent, the respondent was seeking to evict him from the subject land, 
Learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area), on instructions, would submit that the respondent is taking steps to have the order of injunction passed in C.M.A. No.18 of 2012 set aside;  
it is only because of the order in the C.M.A that no orders were passed under Section 6 of the Act; and, till the order of injunction continues to remain in force and orders passed under Section 6 of the Act thereafter,  the respondent would not interfere with the possession  of the petitioner over the subject land. 
Learned Government Pleader would further submit that, under the guise of the order of temporary injunction, the petitioner is proceeding with the construction. 
It is not for this Court to go into the question whether or not the petitioner herein is justified in proceeding with the construction, as these are all matters which are subject matter of examination either in the Revision to be filed by the respondent or in the proceedings initiated under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905.  
Suffice to observe that any construction, which the petitioner may make, would always be subject to the outcome of the proceedings initiated by the respondent under the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, closed. The miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. No costs.

_____________________________
(RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J)
05.03.2013
VSV/ASP

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.

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

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.