GUTTIKONDA KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 15-11-85 in ATA No. 128/85 of the District Judge, Guntur, the 1st respondent herein confirming the order passed by the Special Officer (Tenancy) Narasaraopet, the 2nd respondent herein in A.T.C, No. 28/84 on 7-8-85.

(2.) The petitioner is the tenant of land admeasuring about Ac. 30-00 in D. N. 136 of Murikipudi village belonging to respondent No. 3 herein, The land was leased by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner in the year 1969 and the petitioner has been cultivating the same eversince. The petitioner filed A.T.C No. 34/81 on the file of the District Munsif, Narasaraopet who is the Special Officer, the 2nd respondent herein, under the Tenancy Act for a declaration that he is a cultivating tenant within the meaning of the Tenancy Act and also sought an injunction from interfering with his possession and enjoyment. An injunction was granted on 30-6-81 in favour of the petitioner Thereafter the dispute between the - petitioner and respondent No. 3 had been compromised and the lease in favour of the petitioner had been extended for a period of six years commencing from 1982. The application ATC No. 34/31 filed by the petitioner was accordingly dismissed, as having been settlad out of Court. Thereafter the petitioner continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the land cultivating the same. When disputes once again started in the year 1984, the petitioner filed an application under section 16 of the Tenancy Act before the 2nd respondent in ATC .No. 28/84 seeking a declaration that he is a cultivating tenant and his possession should not be interfered with. The petitioner also filed an application for a temporary injunction. On 30-6-84 an ex parte injunction was granted but the same was vacated on 11-7-1934. Against the order vacating the temporary injunction the petitioner filed appeal before the first respondent in ATA No. 73/84. The first respondent allowed the appeal on 20-9-1984 in his order in ATA. 73/84 holding that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the land and his possession should, therefore be protected. The petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to protect the interests of respondent No. 3 which sum the petitioner deposited. Apprehending that respondent No. 3 may file a writ petition questioning the order of the first respondent in ATA 73/84 dated 20-9-1984, the petitioner filed a Caveat in this court on 24-9-84. Respondent No 3 did file a writ petition in this court bearing W.P. No. 13746/84 on 26-9-84. Respondent No. 3 also filed a petition for stay of the order of the first respondent, It appears respondent No. 3 moved a lunch-motion on 26-9-19S4 and obtained orders ex-parte staying the operation of tha order of the first respondent in ATA. 73/84 dated 20-9-84. The petitioner moved this court for vacating the stay. On 10-10-84 this court directed that status quo as on 24-9-84, when the petitioner filed caveat, should be maintained, pending disposal of the writ petition. It is said that in the order passed by this Court the date was erroneously specified as 26-4-84 instead of 24-9-1984-but nothing turns on that. On 19-10-84 the writ petition itself came up for final orders. The orders passed by this Court on 10-10-84 in the miscellaneous petition were directed to bo considered as orders in the main writ petition itself. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of. may be mentioned that in the order disposing of the writ petition it was correctly mentioned that status quo as on 24-9-84, when the petitioner filed caveat in this Court, shall be maintained pending disposal of the application ATC 28/84 filed by the petitioner in the court of the 2nd respondent on 13-6-84. Against the orders of this court disposing Of W.P. No. 13746/84 on 19-10-84, both the petitioner as well as respondent No 3 were aggrieved and both of them had filed appeals bearing No. 1386 and 1395 of 1384, On 26-10-84 both the appeals were dismissed by this court stating that the District Judge, the first respondent herein, found that the petitioner was in possession of the land and the finding of the first respondent being a finding of fact, this court would not interfere with such a finding under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time the Division Bench also held in the appeals that the status quo ordered on 19-10-84 by the learned single Judge while disposing of W.P. No. 13746/84 shall continue to be effective till the disposal of the petition filed by the petitioner before the second respondent in ATC 28/84.

(3.) The 2nd respondent then took up the petitioner's application in ATC.28/ 84for hearing, On 7-8-85 the 2nd respondent dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. The order passed by the 2nd respondent reads as under :- "Petition filed under section 16 of the Andhra Tenancy Act to pass a, decree declaring that the petitioner is the lawful tenant of the schedule property and he is entitled to protection under Act 39/74 and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from causing obstruction to petitioner's enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for'costs. This petition coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. N.V Apparao counsel for the petitioner and of Sri.Y.Y. Raghavuiu Counsel for R1 and Sri. Byra Prasad Rao Counsel for R2 and R3 and of Sri. Y.S.S. Sastry counsel for R4 the court delivered the following :- ORDER. Petitioner is called absent, Respondents ready. The petition is dismissed with costs. Produced (pronounced) in open Court this the 7th day of August, 1935. Sd/-K. Rajagopaiareddy, Special Officer. It would, therefore, appear that the second respondent dismissed the application filed by the petitioner in ATC. 28/84 for default of the petitioner's presence when called. Questioning the order of the second respo dent dismissing the petition filed for derault on7-8-85 the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent in ATA. 128/85. The petitioner filed an application before the first respondent seeking a temporary injunction, as the status quo order passed by this Court on 19-10-84 and 26-10-84 ceased to be effective the moment the 2nd responds it dismissed the patitioner's application in ATC 28/34 for default. The first respondent, after hearing the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 granted a temporary injunction on 5-9-85. On 15-11-85 the firsi respondent finally disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner in ATA 123/85 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dismissing the petitioners application ATC 28/84 for default. It is this order of the first respondent that is assailed in the preaent writ petition filed by the petitioner. The writ petition was admitted on 10-12-85 and an interim injunction was granted on 10-12-85 in WPMP- 19259/85 restraining the respondent No.3 from interfering With the possession and enjoyment of the land. Respondent No.3 filed WVMP. No. 243/85 for vacating the ex parte injunction granted by this court on 10-12-85. As I felt that it would be appropriate to dispose of the main writ petition itself, I heard Sri. M. Ramaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. G.V.L. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3.