B KALYANI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE four petitioners are allegedly absolute owners and possessors of plot Nos. 75-D, 75-C and 75-B, each admeasuring 325 square yards, situated at Green Hills Colony, Saroornagar. First petitioner got the plot under registered gift deed, dated 12. 12. 1995 from her father, petitioners 2 and 3 jointly purchased under registered sale deeds, dated 30. 7. 1998 and fourth petitioner purchased the property under registered sale deed, dated 12. 3. 2008. Alleging that there is an interference with possession from respondents 5 and 6, first petitioner filed OS No. 325 of 2008 on the file of Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District and obtained ad interim injunction on 27. 2. 2008 in IA No. 379 of 2008. Similarly, petitioners 2 and 4 filed OS No. 220 of 2008 on the file of Court of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. Both the suits are pending.

(2.) IN the meanwhile, second respondent by proceedings, dated 18. 2. 2008, requested fourth respondent to handover possession of land admeasuring 9,000 square yards, in survey No. 8, near Killa Maisamma, Saroornagar Village to sixth respondent as per demarcation sketch of third respondent vide his letter, dated 8. 2. 2008. It is alleged that armed with the letter of second respondent, fifth respondent, a group of unknown persons and employees from the office of fourth respondent high handedly tried to enter into petitioner's land. Their enquiries revealed that fifth respondent filed O. S. No. 509 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, against fourth respondent for granting perpetual injunction. The said Court, by order, dated 12. 7. 2007 made in I. A. No. 551 of 2007 granted ad interim injunction restraining fourth respondent from demolishing the structures in the property of the said suit. The sixth respondent who is General Power of Attorney holder of fifth respondent, then obtained the impugned order in collusion with respondents 2 and 3. Therefore, petitioners filed instant writ petition seeking writ of mandamus declaring letter, dated 18. 2. 2008, of second respondent addressed to fourth respondent and the connected demarcation sketch, dated 8. 2. 2008 of third respondent as illegal and arbitrary.

(3.) AS rightly pointed out by learned Assistant Government Pleader when three suits involving the title and possession to the land in Survey Nos. 7 and 8 are already pending in the civil Courts, a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India would not lie. The legal position is well settled. (See K. S. Rashid and Son v. ITi Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207, Carl Still G. M. B. H. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 Sc 1615 and Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay v. Gokak Patel Volkart, (1995) 1 SCC 642 ). If there is any threat of high handed dispossession, the petitioners who obtained orders of ad interim injunction from the civil Courts can as well approach respondents 2 and 4, and give a representation. It is also open to them to get impleaded in O. S. No. 509 of 2007 on the file of Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District and seek necessary clarificatory orders in the civil Court. In a case of this nature, if the High Court interferes, it not only amounts to interfering with the civil judicial process already initiated by rival parties in civil Courts, but also send confusing signals to public authorities who are bound to respect orders of Courts. As held by Full Bench of Madras High Court in Vidya Charan Shukla v Tamil Nadu Olympic Association, AIR 1991 Mad. 323, an order of injunction operates as an order in rem, and unless and until clarification is sought from concerned Court which granted injunction, even a third party cannot violate such order, which might result in legal injury to the beneficiary of Court order.