GOUNI SATYA REDDI Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh upholding the judgment and order passed by the Special Court under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 (for short the Act) directing the appellant to hand over the possession of the land to respondent No. 3 herein Dr. Guru Bhagavathula Rama Krishna Rao, has been impugned.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to the dispute between the parties are that according to the appellant he had purchased the land in dispute by means of a registered sale deed dated 5-2-1994 executed on behalf of respondent No. 3 by his General Power of Attorney-holder S. Prabhakara Rao. He was granted permit by the appropriate authorities for construction over the land in the month of March, 1994 whereafter the appellant started construction and had already raised pillars etc. when an objection was raised by Tirupathiah who claimed to be the General Power of Attorney of the respondent No. 3. The case of Tirupathiah was that no one else including S. Prabhakara Rao had any right to transfer the property. However, since obstruction was being created to the construction undertaken by the appellant over the land in dispute, he filed a suit for injunction on 28-3-1994. An interim injunction was granted in favour of the appellant. Later, however, Tirupathiah also filed a suit on 29-6-1994 for respondent No. 3 claiming possession over the land. On 29-6-1994 an order to maintain status quo was passed and ultimately by judgment and order dated 20-10-1994 both suits were decided confirming the injunction granted in favour of the appellant and dismissing the suit of respondent No. 3.

(3.) In respect to the question of possession, on consideration of all the evidence adduced before the Civil Court, it recorded a finding that the appellant was in possession and a case for grant of interim injunction was made out. However, in so far the question as to the title and ownership of the land was concerned it was observed that it was for the parties to approach the competent Court for determination of their dispute since no other relief was prayed for except for an interim injunction. While disposing of the suit O.S. No. 3226 of 1994 filed by G. Ramakrishna Rao the Trial Court found that there was no reason to grant any status quo order as prayed for and so far the question of title is concerned it was observed that it was open to the parties to take appropriate steps and approach the competent Court to determine their dispute in respect of the title.