Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 939 (AP)

Gumpenapalli Sulochana v. Tahsildar

2012-10-01

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2012
Judgment The petitioner prays for a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondents 1 to 5 in interfering with the civil disputes and forcing him to vacate the land admeasuring Ac.17.00 in Survey Nos.249/1 and 250 of Sarapaka Village, Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam District as illegal and arbitrary. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to S.T. Community and that she purchased Ac.11.36 cents in the Survey Numbers referred to above from one Sri Toleti Rama Rao represented by his G.P.A., by name Sri P.Ramachander Rao in the year 2001. It is also stated that another extent of Acs.6.00 adjoining the said land has been developed by her. By referring to various proceedings, that ensued before different authorities in respect of the said land, the petitioner contends that Toleti Rama Rao filed O.S.No.49 of 1999 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem against the respondents herein for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the said land and O.S.No.242 of 2005 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem against the petitioner herein. Reference is made to the various orders passed therein. The petitioner contends that she filed O.S.No.116 of 2011 in the Court of Special Assistant Agent, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam against the respondents herein for the relief of perpetual injunction and an order of temporary injunction was passed on 14.07.2011 in I.A. No. 90 of 2011. It is stated that the order of temporary injunction was vacated by the trial Court and C.R.P. filed against it is pending before this Court. The petitioner submits that after the order of temporary injunction was vacated, the respondents herein and in particular the Tahsildar, Burgampahad, 1st respondent herein and the Circle Inspector of Police, Palwancha, 5th respondent herein are entering the land and encouraging the private parties to dispossess her. Legal notices were got issued to the respondents requiring them to desist from the illegal activities. It is with this background that the petitioner prays for the relief. Heard Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.5. Legal notices were got issued to the respondents requiring them to desist from the illegal activities. It is with this background that the petitioner prays for the relief. Heard Sri P.V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent No.5. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition discloses that voluminous litigation, be it in the form of writ petitions, suits, proceedings before the revenue authorities under the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act (for short ‘the Act’) or proceedings before the police stations and criminal courts ensued in respect of the land. The petitioner did not specifically mention the basis for or the circumstances under which, she filed the suit. It however emerges that the petitioner filed two writ petitions being W.P.Nos.32545 and 14877 of 2010 before this Court exactly for the same relief as prayed for in this writ petition. The only difference is that while in those writ petitions she has impleaded private parties, against whom, she had disputes, she has omitted them in the array of parties in this writ petition. Through a common order, dated 27.06.2011, this Court dismissed both the writ petitions and left it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy by filing a suit. Various interim orders passed at different stages were vacated. This Court expressed its serious displeasure over the manner in which the petitioner sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction and initially obtained order of temporary injunction. When the order of temporary injunction was vacated, she has approached this Court by filing a C.R.P., Obviously because interim orders were passed therein, she has once again chosen to file this writ petition, deliberately omitting to implead the parties, at whose instance the order of temporary injunction was vacated. The petitioner has resorted to gross misuse of process of Court. As of now, the pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the land were issued in favour of a different person and proceedings are said to be pending at the stage of revision. The petitioner has resorted to gross misuse of process of Court. As of now, the pattadar pass books and title deeds in respect of the land were issued in favour of a different person and proceedings are said to be pending at the stage of revision. Once the order of temporary injunction is vacated, the petitioner has to await the outcome of the C.R.P. She cannot pursue the remedies partly in the suit and partly in the writ petition, that too when the writ petitions with identical prayer were dismissed. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only). The petitioner shall deposit the costs with the Warden of the Tribal Welfare Hostel for Girls functioning in or around Kothagudem within four weeks from today. The amount shall be utilized by the Warden for purchasing the articles of personal use for the inmates of the hostel. The petitioner shall submit the receipt of deposit of the amount before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Palwancha, 2nd respondent herein. Till the 2nd respondent informs the Joint Collector about the deposit of the amount, the revision under Section 9 of the Act filed by the petitioner shall not be taken up for hearing. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.