CHAVALI RANGA REDDY Vs. CHAVALI SESHA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fourth defendant is the appellant (hereafter called, the fourth defendant). Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed O.S. No.224 of 1986 on the file of the Court of the Munsif Magistrate, Kamalapuram, for permanent injunction restraining respondents 3 to 5 herein (hereinafter called, the defendants 1 to 3) from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land and for a declaration that defendants 1 to 3 have no right to sell or deal in any manner the land covered by Panchayat Samithi Road in Survey Nos.3, 3B, 4, 4/2B, 4/3B and 7 situated at Akkampet Village of Kamalapuram Taluk in Kadapa District. On 3.8.1990, the suit, in which defendants 1 to 3 remained ex parte after filing the written statement, was decreed. The fourth defendant carried the matter to the Court of Subordinate Judge, Proddatur, which dismissed A.S. No.32 of 1990 on 7.7.1995.

(2.) The land admeasuring Ac.0.12 cents in survey Nos.4/2B and 4/3B out of an extent of Acs. 1.38 cents of Akkampet Village is classified as Rasta Poramboke (passage way), which was in possession of the first plaintiff. Besides this, the plaintiff was also owner of extent of Ac.0.40 cents in 3/A.1 abutting the Panchayat Road in Survey Nos.4/2B and 4/3B, over which they claim right of ingress and egress. The fourth defendant is the owner of land in Survey Nos.3/A and 8/3. He dug a water filter point in Survey No.3/A and so as to take the water to his lands in Survey No.8/3, he wanted to dig a channel all along the suit schedule passage way, in such a manner, that the channel would have passed between the land of the plaintiff and the suit schedule passage way or Rasta Poramboke. The fourth defendant, therefore, made an application to the second defendant, namely, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) for permission. The latter, by communication, marked as Ex.A.3, recommended to the first defendant to sell the land to the fourth defendant for market value. In turn, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) by Ex.A.4, communication, also agreed with the MRO. The fourth defendant then approached the first defendant i.e., the District Collector, who agreed for alienation of the land. In the said order, the first defendant also informed that a revision would lie before the Commissioner of Land Revenue (CLR) against his order. However, plaintiffs chose to file a suit seeking the relief as above.

(3.) The second defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by defendants 1 and 3. They opposed the suit inter alia alleging that when the revenue authorities permitted the digging of the channel adjoining the Samithi Road as ordered by the first defendant, the remedy of the plaintiffs was to approach CLR, that the plaintiffs were in unauthorized occupation of the Government land and that they were not entitled for injunction. In the separate written statement, fourth defendant denied possession of plaintiffs in respect of Ac.0.12 cents in Survey Nos.4/2B and 4/3B. He further contended that civil Court is not a proper forum to adjudicate the matter and that the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The parties have amended their pleadings subsequently.