DATLA VISSAM RAJU Vs. BANDARU GOPALA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ application, the petitioner seeks to have the injunction order dated 2nd January, 1960 of the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, passed in I.A. No. 1 of 1960 in favour of the 1st respondent, quashed on the ground that it is passed without jurisdiction and offends Article 14 of the Constitution guaranteeing equality before law and equal protection of laws and Article 19 as being an unreasonable restriction on the right to hold, acquire and enjoy property.

(2.) A few facts may be stated to understand the contentions of the parties. The petitioner purchased Acres 4-25 cents in Revision S. No. 99/1 situated in Pentapadu, in West Godavari District, in a Court-sale held by the Dt. Munsif, Kowur, West Godavari District, on 19th November, 1959, for Rs. 7,400. This Court-sale was held in execution petition No. 447 of 1959 in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by one Sattriraju Ramachandra Row against the owner of the land and mortgagor Kilambi Ramavataram. After the petitioner purchased the land, he obtained a sale certificate dated 6th January, 1960. It is alleged that while the petitioner has applied for the sale certificate in order to get possession of the land, the 1st respondent Bandaru Gopala Row filed a petition before the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, the 2nd respondent, in I.A. No. 1 of 1960 purporting to be an application under sections 3 and 7 of the Andhra Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXXVII of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and obtained the impugned injunction order dated 2nd January, 1960, by which the petitioner was restrained from interfering with the possession of the 1st respondent or taking delivery of the peroperty through Court in O.S. No. 149 of 1958 or otherwise till the disposal of I.A. No. 1 of 1960 or until further orders. This order of injunction purports to have been passed against the mortgagor R. Ramavataram also. The order was said to have been passed pursuant to rule 16 made under the Act by G. O. Ms. No. 2106, Revenue, dated 15th November, 1958. It is this rule that is challenged as being made beyond the rule-making power of the Government, as it cannot be said to be one made for any of the purposes of the Act and is further hit by Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

(3.) It is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the power to issue an order of injunction is a special and specific power which can only be conferred on a Court or a tribunal by a statute ; that it is not a power which can be granted by any rule framed under section 17 of the Act under which the rule-making power was reserved to the Government; that the power to grant injunction is an extraordinary power and not one even inherent in a Court by any provisions of the Act on the authorities on which specified powers and jurisdiction were conferred under sections, such as 3, 5, 7, etc., of the Act ; and that when section 13 of the Act made certain specified provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to the proceedings under the Act leaving the particular provision relating to grant of injunctions outside its purview, it is not open to the Government to enlarge the power. It is, therefore, argued that the impugned rule and the G.O. granting an undefined, unrestricted and unabridged power of issuing an injunction are too wide, vague, arbitrary and discriminatory. Further, they do not lay down any principles of policy or guidance and consequently the rule offends Article 14 as well as 19 of the Constitution.