THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.156 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 18.01.2008 passed in I.A.No.716 of 2007 in O.S.No.26 of 2007 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. Plaintiff is the appellant. He filed suit O.S.No.26 of 2007 for declaration of his right and title over the schedule property and for other reliefs. Pending the suit he filed I.A.No.716 of 2007 which was filed under Order 39, Rule 1 C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondents/defendants, their subordinates and their men in any way interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property, which is the subject matter of this appeal, was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Court below ought to have seen that the appellant had purchased the plaint schedule property from the original assignee as long as on 01.09.1966 under a registered sale deed i.e., before commencement of Act 9 of 1977 of A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition Transfers) Act, 1977 (for short, ‘the Act’) which came into force on 21.01.1977 and as such the resumption proceedings initiated by the respondents does not arise as the appellant had purchased the plaint schedule property as a landless poor person in good faith for a valuable consideration and the appellant would squarely fall under Sub-Section 5 of Sec.3 of the Act. He further contended that the original assignee by name R.Reddappa had filed claim petition before the then Tahsildar, Madanapalle in R.O.C.No.882 of 1987 to re-assign the plaint schedule property to him and after conducting enquiry the then Tahsildar, Madanapalle had dismissed his claim petition and against the same he preferred appeal before the Sub-Collector under Appeal No.12748 of 1990 and the same has been dismissed holding that the case will fall under Sub-Section 5 of Sec.3 of the Act and as such once the revenue authorities had declared the appellant that he has purchased the land as landless poor person in good faith for a valuable consideration as contemplated under Sub-Section 5 of Section 3 of the Act cannot again initiate resumption proceedings against the appellant as they are estopped from doing so as they have no jurisdiction. The appellant had established his title as well as possession over the plaint schedule property under Exs.A.1 to A.8 and A.10 and A.11 and without considering the same, the Court below has dismissed the I.A., which is illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner is that after the demise of Subbanna, his son Reddeppa sold the same to the petitioner/ plaintiff for a valid consideration under a registered sale deed dated 12.09.1966 and the petitioner/plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property since then that when Reddeppa filed a claim petition before the Tahsildar, Madanapalle in R.O.C.No.A/882/87 for reassigning the schedule property to him, the same was rejected on merits, due to which the matter was taken to Sub-Collector, Madanapalle in appeal in D.Dis.No.12748 of 1990 which was also dismissed on 21.12.1994 that thereafter the then Mandal Revenue Officer had issued D.K.T.patta in the name of the petitioner/plaintiff though the latter did not apply for the same on 12.02.2007, the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant issued proceedings in ROC No.255 of 2007 that the schedule property is required for public purpose and ultimately called for the explanation of the petitioner/plaintiff that the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant without examining the documents of the petitioner/ plaintiff passed orders resuming the schedule property to Government on 03.03.2007 and that when the petitioner/plaintiff preferred an appeal challenging the above order passed by the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant before the Sub-Collector, Madanapalle in ROC.No.B1/1209/2007, the same also was dismissed and subsequently he filed the main suit. Upon considering the contentions of both the parties and perusing the record especially focusing on Exs.A1 and A2, it is emphatically clear that the entire controversy eclipses round the status of the petitioner i.e., whether the petitioner is the purchaser of the schedule property as contemplated under section 3(5) of the Act. In this regard, it is beneficial to extract Section 3(5) of the Act, which reads as under: “ Sec.3(5): Nothing in this section shall apply to an assigned land which was purchased by a landless poor person in good faith and for valuable consideration from the original assignee or his transferee prior to the commencement of this Act and which is in the possession of such person for purposes of cultivation or as a house site on the date of such commencement.” The finding of the trial Court that the petitioner could not establish that he is the owner of the property and that he is only an ‘assignee’ and hence he cannot have any relief of temporary injunction is falsified by Exs.A1 and A2, prima facie it appears the petitioner has purchased the land from the original assignee before commencement of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 (Act 9 of 1977) that too for a valid consideration under a registered sale deed dated 12.09.1966 and he has been in possession since the date of purchase. In the circumstances, when there is a finding of the trial Court that the petitioner is in possession of the property and that when the sale transaction in question is saved by Section 3(5) of the Act the trial Court committed an error by not granting an injunction to the petitioner when Section 3(5) of the Act protects the persons placed in the position of the petitioner. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the trial Court. In view of the above, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside as a consequence injunction is granted. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY,J 5th October, 2010. PNV