Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 659 (TS)

L. Sathi Reddy v. Bussa Narsimlu

2025-05-14

T.MADHAVI DEVI

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the orders dated 11.04.2025 in C.M.A.No.11 of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Siddipet District, refusing to grant interim injunction to the petitioner in I.A.No.20 of 2023 in O.S.No.18 of 2023, dated 01.03.2024, on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gajwel. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that the petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.18 of 2023 filed for perpetual injection in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., all land admeasuring Ac.0-03.25 guntas in Survey No.323 (323/EE/1/1/2) and Ac.1- 12.25 guntas in Survey No.322 (322/A/1/1, 322/AA/1/2, 322/E/1/1 and 322/E/2/1), totally admeasuring Ac.1-15.50 guntas, situated at Ananthagiripally Village, Wargal Mandal, Siddipet District. The boundaries of the suit schedule property are shown as North – P.W.D road (Toopran to Gajwel), South – land belongs to Suresh in Survey No.322, East – 12 feet wide road and West – Yavapuram Shivaar. Along with the suit, the petitioner plaintiff has also filed I.A.No.20 of 2023 for ad-interim injunction against the respondents. The respondents opposed the ad-interim injunction by filing a counter affidavit, denying the averments made by the petitioner in the I.A., stating that the suit schedule land in Survey No.323 is situated to Northern side quite abutting to PWD road leading from Gajwel to Toopran and land in Survey No.322 is situated towards Southern side to the land admeasuring Survey No.323 and the petitioner plaintiff has no land in Survey No.323 after railway track towards Eastern side. It is further submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff dishonestly filed a suit with an intention to grab the land in Survey No.323 and that the respondents No.3 and 4 are the owners and possessors of the land in Survey No.323. It is further submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff dishonestly filed a suit with an intention to grab the land in Survey No.323 and that the respondents No.3 and 4 are the owners and possessors of the land in Survey No.323. It is also stated that the respondent/defendant No.3 had sold land admeasuring Ac.0-07½ guntas of land in Survey No.323/A to respondent/defendant No.2, through registered sale deed No.23 of 2022, dated 20.01.2022 and the respondent/defendant No.4 sold the Ac.0-07½ guntas of land to respondent/defendant No.2 through registered sale deed and therefore, the respondent/defendant No.2 is the owner and possessor of 15 guntas of land in Survey No.323 purchased through separate sale deeds from the original pattadars with the boundaries as East : the land of Guvva Pochaiah; West : the railway track; North : the road; and South : the land of Lekkala Sathireddy i.e., petitioner/plaintiff herein. It is further stated that the respondent/defendant No.1 in turn, has purchased the said land through registered sale deed dated 1544 of 2022, dated 17.06.2022 from the respondent/defendant No.2 and that he has been put in possession of the vacant land by his vendor and he is in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same ever since. It is also stated that the respondent No.1 has approached the Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Wargal, for conversion of agricultural land to non- agricultural land and the said petition was allowed through Proceedings No.2201010725, dated 01.12.2022 and that the land was converted to non-agricultural land and the respondent/defendant No.1 has paid required fee for conversion of land and obtained the permission for construction of RCC buildings and that the construction work has already started and that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the subject suit only to harass the respondent No.1. 3. The trial Court has dismissed the I.A., by observing that the petitioner has utterly failed to prove that there is a railway line on the West side of his land as per the claim and that there are no supporting documents to claim the same, whereas the respondents have proved before the Court that they are having railway track towards Western side of their land. The same was challenged by the petitioner/plaintiff in C.M.A.No.11 of 2024 along with I.A.No.305 of 2024 for ad-interim injunction. 4. The same was challenged by the petitioner/plaintiff in C.M.A.No.11 of 2024 along with I.A.No.305 of 2024 for ad-interim injunction. 4. Initially, the First Appellate Court in I.A.No.305 of 2024 has directed both the parties to maintain status-quo as on the date of filing of the petition. However, vide impugned order dated 11.04.2025, the CMA has been dismissed by observing that the petitioner has failed to prima-facie establish, through the documents filed by him, that there exists a railway track towards Western side of his land and that the trial Court refused to grant relief of temporary injunction and that the Appellate Court does not find any error in the order of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the registered sale deed bearing No. 3894 of 2022, under which the petitioner has purchased 21 guntas of land in Survey No.322/E/1, 30 guntas of land in Survey No.322/A and 16 guntas of land in Survey No.322/E/5, Ac.1-10 guntas of land in Survey No.323/EE, 35 guntas of land in Survey No.322/AA, 3 guntas of land in Survey No.322/E/5 and 2 guntas of land in Survey No.322, total land admeasuring Ac.3-37 guntas, all situated at Ananthagiripally Village and Gram Panchayat, Wargal Revenue Mandal, Medak District, A.P., which were bounded: North by PWD road (Toopran to Gajwel road), South by land of Suresh, East by a way, and West by Yuvapur Shivar. He submitted that thereafter a part of the land of the petitioner has been acquired by the railways for laying a railway track, and in effect the railway tract divided the land into two portionsm i.e., to the East and West side of the railway track. He stated that the petitioner has also been paid the compensation for such acquisition. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the sale deed No.251 of 2018, dated 20.10.2017 in between the petitioner and the Tahsildar, Wargal, under which the total of 1.27 Acres of land has been sold for the purpose of the railway track. He stated that the petitioner has also been paid the compensation for such acquisition. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the sale deed No.251 of 2018, dated 20.10.2017 in between the petitioner and the Tahsildar, Wargal, under which the total of 1.27 Acres of land has been sold for the purpose of the railway track. He submitted that the land in Survey No.323 to the extent of 29½ guntas and Survey No.322 to the extent of 37 guntas was acquired and the petitioner was left with land in Survey Nos.323, 322 on both sides of the railway track. The petitioner has thereafter sold the land on the Western side of railway track to one M.Q.M.K.Aqueel, S/o.Mohd.Hyder Khan Ursi, vide registered sale deed No.3221 of 2018, dated 21.03.2018 and Eastern boundary of the same is shown as railway track, West side is Yavapur Shivar, North side is PWD road (Toopran to Gajwel) and South is the land of Suresh. It is submitted that thereafter, the balance of land left with the petitioner is only on the Eastern side of the railway track and therefore, the western boundary of the balance land of the petitioner is the railway track, and he has accordingly shown the same in the suit schedule property. He submitted that both the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have failed to consider the same and have only observed that the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that there exists a railway tract towards Western side of the suit schedule property. The trial Court has referred to Ex.P4, where he has shown the railway track towards East side. He submitted that Ex.P4 is the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of one Mr. M.Q.M.K.Aqueel and therefore, the authorities have misread the document and have denied the relief of interim injunction to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the above submissions, while the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the orders of trial Court and submitted that the respondents have shown the boundaries of their land, whereas, the petitioner has failed to prove his boundaries and particularly, the railway track on the Western side of his land. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the above submissions, while the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the orders of trial Court and submitted that the respondents have shown the boundaries of their land, whereas, the petitioner has failed to prove his boundaries and particularly, the railway track on the Western side of his land. 7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that during the pendency of the CMA, an interim direction to maintain status-quo was passed and this Court has also passed an order to maintain status-quo pending adjudication of the Civil Revision Petition. This Court finds that the documents are filed by the petitioner to demonstrate that the petitioner’s land was divided into two portions by laying of the railway track after acquisition of part of land of the petitioner for railway track and that one portion has railway track on the Eastern side and other portion has railway track on Western side. The petitioner has sold portion of the land having railway track as the Eastern boundary and the balance of the land left with the petitioner would be the land with railway track as its Western boundary. This Court finds that both the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have failed to appreciate this factual aspect and have rejected the application of the petitioner for ad-interim injunction. 8. In view thereof, the order in C.MA.No.11 of 2024, dated 11.04.2025 as well as the order in I.A.No.20 of 2023, dated 01.03.2024, are side aside and the trial Court is directed to reconsider the issue after considering the documentary evidence filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. Till such time, the interim order of staus-quo shall be maintained by all concerned. 9. This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.