Rajeti Kanchayya vs Gundu Bhaskaramma and Another

K.B. Siddappa, J.—This Revision is filed against the judgment passed in C.M.A. No. 15/94 on the file of Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.

The plaintiff who is the Revision Petitioner herein had filed the suit for perpetual injunction. He has also filed a petition for ad-interim injunction which was granted. Aggrieved by the said order the defendant preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal which was allowed.

Against the said Judgment in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal the present Revision is filed by the plaintiff.

The learned counsel appearing for the Revision petitioner submitted that D-Form Patta was given to the plaintiff in respect of Ac.1-75 cents in the year 1976. Subsequently, D-Form Patta was also given in respect of the same land in favour of the father of the 1st respondent on 1-9-1986 as he is an ex-service man. the plaintiff stated that the subsequent granting of D-Form Patta in favour of the father of the 1st respondent was manipulated etc. This was considered by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Mandal Revenue Officer after enquiry passed order in Ex. A-5, dated 27-12-1993 holding that the plaintiff is entitled for D-Form Patta and in pursuance of that order he put the plaintiff in possession on 2-1-1994. Aggrieved by the said order the respondent herself preferred Appeal to Revenue Divisional Officer on 1-1-1994. There was no suspension granted in her favour. As stated earlier, possession was given to the Revision petitioner on 2-1-1994 by the Mandal Revenue, Officer. Since stay was not granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 56/94 on 3-1-1994. The same was disposed of holding that the petition cannot be entertained as Appeal is already preferred. However, in the Writ Petition the learned Judge directed that status-quo as on the date of filing of Appeal i.e., as on 1-1-1994, shall be maintained. The learned Counsel submitted that while holding that the Writ Petition cannot be entertained in view of the availability of the alternative remedy, the learned Judge ought not to have given a further direction to maintain status-quo as on the date of filing the Appeal. The direction was given at the admission stage. The respondent (Revision Petitioner) was not heard. So any observation made does not bind the Revision Petitioner.

In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Textile Workers'' Union and Others Vs. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Others, wherein it was held:-

"There is a peculiar and surprising misconception of natural justice, in some quarters, that it is exclusively, a principle of administrative law. It is not. It is first a universal principle, and, therefore, a rule of administrative law. It is that part of the judicial procedure which is imported into the administrative process because of its universality. Courts even more than administrators must observe natural justice."

He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in The State of Orissa Vs. Madan Gopal Rungta, . In this case it was held:-

"......When the Court declined to decide on the rights of the parties and expressly held that they should be investigated more properly in a civil suit, it could for the purpose of facilitating the institution of such suit, issue directions in the nature of temporary injunctions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

The learned Counsel further submitted that on the date of the suit i.e., 9-2-1994, as per Government records the plaintiff was in possession. Further Exs. A-6 and A-7 which are dated 8-11-1993 and 22-3-1994 respectively, also show the possession of the plaintiff on the date of filing of the suit. Certainly he is entitled for injunction. He also further submitted that the lower appellate Court decided the case on mere presumptions and surmises and wrongly vacated the injunction granted by the trial Court, etc.

On the other hand the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted (hat the Adangal Ex.B-2 shows that the father of the respondents is the owner of the property. As per the directions in the Writ Petition, status-quo as on 1-1-1994 should be maintained. Admittedly, the petitioner was put in possession on 2-1-1994. Therefore, he is not entitled for any injunction because evidently he was not in possession on 1-1-1994.

I am unable to agree with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondents. The suit was filed on 9-2-1994. In pursuance of Ex.A-5 the Mandal Revenue Officer put the petitioner into possession on 2-1-1994. Therefore on the date of the suit which is relevant for the purpose of granting injunction, the petitioner-plaintiff was in possession. The observation in the Writ Petition is not binding on the Revision Petitioner who was respondent therein, in his absence in the Writ Petition. He was not heard. Not only that, while disposing of the Writ Petition any positive direction cannot be given. This Court on number of occasions has held to that effect. Therefore, the direction to maintain status-quo as on 1-1-1994 is redundant, and cannot be taken into consideration. The learned District Judge certainly assumed so many things in coming to the conclusion that the respondent herein was in possession of the suit schedule property. He mainly relied upon Ex.B-2, which is No. 2 Account for the Fasli 1397 i.e., 1987. The No. 2 Account is produced before me. The name of the father of the respondents is mentioned as Pattedar. The possessor column is vacant. Simply because the pattedar name is mentioned it cannot be presumed that the pattedar is in occupation of the land. Whatever may be the documents of the respondents, it is evident from Ex.A-5 that in pursuance of Ex.A-5 order the Mandal Revenue Officer put the petitioner into possession admittedly on 2-1-1994. The suit was filed on 9-2-1994 and therefore on the date of filing of the suit the petitioner was in possession. This certainly entitles him for injunction.

Consequently, the order of the lower appellate Court is set-aside. The injunction granted by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner is restored.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and in the circumstances without costs.