A.PULLAMMA Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Criminal Petition, at the instance of 1st petitioner/A-party, is to the order, dated 24.11.2012 passed under Section 145 of Cr.P.C by learned Executive Magistrate, Mydukur, YSR Kadapa District in M.C.No.33 of 2011 holding that the respondents/B-party were in possession of the schedule land of Ac.2.30 cents in S.No.326 in Ganjikunta Village and they were entitled to be in possession until evicted therefrom in due course of law and forbidding all disturbance of such possession until such eviction.

(2.) Learned Executive Magistrate passed the above order on the main observation that A-party has filed O.S.No.183 of 2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, wherein itself A-party admitted that B-party has been in possession and further, in the said suit, in I.A.No.1687 of 2011 the Court has granted interim injunction in favour of B-party by restraining A-party in any way interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of B-party over the schedule land till disposal of the suit and interim injunction order has become final, as no appeal was filed. No doubt, A-party has contended before learned Executive Magistrate that the schedule land belong to Ankireddipalli Obula Reddy, the husband of respondent No.1 of A-party and in respect of the said land and some other properties, there was a dispute and on 07.10.1998, learned Special Officer of Tenancy Tribunal-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, dismissed ATC No.8 of 1997 filed by Sala Veeramma against the respondent No.1 in A-party and other and further, the appeal in ATA No.7 of 1998 preferred by said Sala Veeramma was also dismissed by learned District Judge, YSR Kadapa and therefore, the said order being passed by a superior Court i.e., District Court, Kadapa, the same would prevail over the interim injunction order passed by inferior Court i.e., Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur in I.A.No.1687 of 2011 in O.S.No.183 of 2011. However, learned Executive Magistrate did not give weight to the above contention of A-party on the observation that in O.S.No.183 of 2011 filed by A-party, it has admitted the possession of B-party and prayed the Court for recovery of possession and declaration of title and therefore the possession of B-party was admitted irrespective of judgments in ATC No.8 of 1997 and ATA No.7 of 1998. Accordingly, the Executive Magistrate passed the impugned order.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri and learned counsel for respondents Sri L.J. Veera Reddy.