THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3635 OF 2005 Dated 18-3-2011 Between: Chintalapati Krishna Murthy and another. ..Petitioners. And: Razia Sultana and others. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3635 OF 2005 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 9th June, 2005 passed in C.M.A.No.124 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, NTR Nagar, Hyderabad. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondents herein are the plaintiffs. For the sake of convenience, the parties will herein after be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. The specific case of the 1st defendant Chintalapati Krishna Murthy is that he has purchased Ac.2.8 guntas of land in S.No.358 of Chandanagar village, Hyderabad West from the original owner Smt. Mumtazunisa Begum @ Mumtaz Begum under document bearing No.490/1964 dated 26.9.1964. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant. Specific boundaries have been given in the sale deed as follows: East: Survey No.360. West: Survey No.352. South: Survey No.360 and North: Road. The recitals of sale deed go to show that the Government has already acquired a portion of the land for widening of the road i.e., Bombay to Hyderabad and it was agreed that vendor would be entitled for the compensation paid for that land. The recitals of sale deed also go to shows that Hyderabad Water Works were lying water pipes across the land and purchaser would receive compensation if any paid for the same and the purchaser and vendor has nothing to do with the same. The first plaintiff i.e., the 1st respondent herein ie., Razia Sultana claims that the original owner Mumtazunnisa Begum executed a gift deed on 16.4.1968, gifting her land in S.No.358 and 360 admeasuring Ac.3.20 guntas of land situated at Chanda Nagar in her favour. Admittedly, it is an unregistered gift deed. Basing on the said gift deed, she applied for grant of mutation and to record her name in the revenue records. Initially, the said application was rejected by revenue authorities. When she approached this Court, it appears that this Court in W.P.No.15303 of 2003 directed the revenue authorities to consider her case. Then the Deputy Collector and Mandal Revenue Officer, Sherlingampally vide proceedings No.B/470/2002 dated 4.11.2003 ordered to effect the changes in R.O.R. Register of Chandanagar village by showing her name for Ac.29 guntas of land in S.No.358. Then Razia Sultana and others filed a suit in O.S.No.1447 of 2003 for injunction and pending disposal of the suit, they filed I.A.No.2985 of 2003 seeking temporary injunction against the defendants. The learned 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge by orders dated 22.7.2004 allowed the petition granting temporary injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.124 of 2004. The learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District on consideration of the material available on record, allowed the C.M.A. in part and modified the same and ordered to maintain status quo. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants i.e., petitioners herein are in revision before this court. The main contention of the learned counsel for the defendants is that the defendants have purchased property in 1964 with a specific boundaries and their vendor did not retain any property and that the boundaries prevail over the extent of land and therefore, the Courts below have not taken into consideration the fact that the defendants have purchased the suit schedule property with specific boundaries. The main contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is that the property was gifted to the first plaintiff in the year 1968 and total extent of land in S.No.385 and 360 held by Mumtazunnisa Begum is Ac.0.03 guntas of land and that the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Revenue Records surveyed the land and submitted his report and sketch prepared by him clearly go to show that the defendants are in possession of the excess land, than the land purchased by them. As seen from the sketch prepared by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Revenue Records, Ranga Reddy District, Ac.0.16 guntas of land seems to have been acquired for the purpose of laying road. Admittedly, Mumtazunnisa Begum was entitled for the compensation as per the recitals of the sale deed. Towards the South of it, manjira pipe line and road are shown and the extent of area covered by Manjira pipe line and road is shown as Ac.0.04 guantas. Remaining open land is shown as ‘A’ is Ac.0.35 guntas. So, admittedly, the defendants were entitled to the compensation awarded in the land acquired for laying pipe line. The total extent of land is Ac.2.08 guntas. Total extent of land covered by road, pipe line and open land comes to only Ac.1.15 guntas of land. Even after deducting Ac.1.15 guntas from Ac.2.08 guntas, there remains to be Ac.0.33 guntas of land. Thus, it appears that the main dispute is with regard to Ac.0.34 gutnas of land. Therefore, even after deducting Ac.0.17 gutnas of land purchased by the defendants from Ac.0.34 guntas, still there remains Ac.0.17 guntas of land. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submit that the 1st plaintiff has also claimed compensation for the land acquired. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the suit filed in the year 2003 is pending till this date without any progress, I consider it just and reasonable to direct the lower Court to make efforts to dispose of the same as early as possible. In the circumstances, it appears if status quo order is passed, it may create practical problems to the parties and each of them will be claiming that they are in possession of the property and that may give rise to further litigation at the ground level. Therefore, having regard to the fact that the defendants have purchased the land with specific boundaries, I am of the opinion that the status quo order granted by the lower appellate Court is not justified in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, the order of the lower appellate Court is set aside. However having regard to the facts and circumstances, I deem it just and reasonable to direct both the parties not to alienate the property or create any kind of third party interest pending disposal of the suit. Further both the parties are directed not to make any constructions or change the physical features of the property pending disposal of the suit. The trial Court is also directed to dispose of the matter without being influenced by any of the observations made by this court, as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both parties are directed to co-operate with the trial Court for disposal of the suit. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 18-3-2011 Dvs THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3635 OF 2005 Dated 18-3-2011