MORAMPALLI RAMASWAMY Vs. BALUSU PAPA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the orders dated 27.07.2020 passed in IA No.26 of 2020 in OS No.26 of 2020 by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Rampachodavaram, East Godavari district.

(2.) The case of the petitioner herein is that the respondents herein have filed OS No.26 of 2020 seeking perpetual injunction; IA No.26 of 2020 was filed in the said suit, under Rule 42 of the AP Agency Rules, 1924, seeking temporary injunction, which was granted on 27.07.2020; the petitioner belongs to SC community and the subject land is situated in the agency area; originally the petitioner's father-in-law by name Rosaiah was in possession of the land in Survey No.57/1, admeasuring an extent of Ac.1-47 cents, situated at Thripurapentaveedu village, Yetapaka Mandal of erstwhile Khammam district, and after bifurcation of the State it is in East Godavari district; the village account for the year 1989-90 shows that the petitioner's father-in-law was in possession of the subject land and the revenue receipts also prove the possession of his father-in-law; after the death of petitioner's father-in-law, his wife by name Lakshmi paid cist amount for the subject property and after the death of his in-laws, the petitioner's wife namely Ramanamma succeeded the said property and the petitioner along with his wife are in possession of the subject property; due to old age, the petitioner gave the subject land to the respondents herein on lease and as the respondents failed to pay the lease amount regularly, the petitioner evicted them from the land and cultivating the same on his own; taking advantage of lease status, the respondents have fraudulently obtained pahani for the year 2019 by colluding with the officials of the revenue department and the respondents do not have any document to prove their possession and they are not entitled to claim possession under the AP Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation 1/70 and under the guise of ex parte injunction orders, the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner; without following the procedure as contemplated under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and without recording any reasons showing prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, the interim injunction order has been passed and in the same order the Station House Officer, Yetapaka was directed to protect the schedule land; in view of the said order, the police are threatening the petitioner not to cultivate the subject land, hence the CRP.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.