IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition Nos.5887, 5888, 5889 and 5916 of 2010 C.R.P.No.5887 of 2010 Between: Gaddam Srinivas Reddy .... Petitioner AND The Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board, Represented by its Secretary at Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad. …. Respondent C.R.P.No.5888 of 2010 Between: Marpu Mahender Reddy .... Petitioner AND The Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board, Represented by its Secretary at Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad. …. Respondent C.R.P.No.5889 of 2010 Between: Nakkala Sridhar Reddy .... Petitioner AND The Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board, Represented by its Secretary at Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad. …. Respondent C.R.P.No.5916 of 2010 Between: Maddi Suseela .... Petitioner AND The Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board, Represented by its Secretary at Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad. …. Respondent COMMON ORDER: Though the petitioners in these four Civil Revision Petitions are different, the respondent is common and though the suits involved in these four cases are different, the impugned orders in all the cases were with reference to the pendency of W.P.No.323 of 2008 before this Court. As all the revisions involved identical questions in controversy, they are being disposed of by this common order. In W.P.No.323 of 2008 on the file of this Court, the four revision petitioners and 27 others sought for declaration of the action of the District Collector, Nalgonda, in declaring the lands in Sy.Nos.219/11 to 219/18 and 219/25 of Nemergomula village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District as Bhoodan land as illegal and to consequently set aside the same. The claim of the writ petitioners is that Ac.301.19 guntas in Sy.No.219 in question was originally allotted to Dharawath Chokla, Sandulla Rajanna, Venkanna Uppala, Madasani Pochaiah and Somala Dakya Lambada and others on payment of market value by the District Collector in proceedings dated 24-2-1956. The writ petitioners claimed that Ac.190.00 guntas were allotted to Dharavath Chokla out of the said land with mutation and implementation in the revenue records being effected as a consequence and pattadar pass books being issued in favour of the allottees. The writ petitioners 1 to 25 claimed to be the legal representatives of Dharavath Chokla and writ petitioners 1 to 15 claimed to have been entered as such in the revenue records. They claimed that the land in Sy.Nos.219/11, 219/12, 219/13, 219/14 and 219/25 was alienated in favour of writ petitioners 26 to 31 about 15 years earlier with possession being delivered to them. The writ petitioners claimed that while so, Bhoodan Yagna Board applied for mutation and issuance of pattas to the beneficiaries for allotment of Ac.103.68 cents in Sy.No.219/5 by the Board based on the survey report of the Assistant Director, Survey and Settlement, Nalgonda. The writ petitioners submitted representations against the same to the Tahsildar, Bibinagar on 23-4-2006 and they informed that the survey by the Assistant Director was without notice and intimation. The Tahsildar, Bibinagar found on enquiry and on perusal of the records that only Ac.10.00 is existing in Sy.No.219/5 as claimed by the writ petitioners and then the Collector, Nalgonda appears to have issued the impugned proceedings to the Assistant Director of Survey and Settlement declaring the lands in question as Bhoodan land. When even the Board claims only Sy.No.219/5, the District Collector on assumptions and presumptions declared Ac.108.50 cents to be Bhoodan land. Therefore, the writ petitioners approached the High Court with the writ petition. The revision petitioners filed O.S.Nos.297, 298, 296 and 299 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir, claiming a permanent injunction in respect of the respective pieces of land claimed to be in their possession against the Andhra Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Board/respondent in the revision petitions on the self-same allegations and contending that the respondent is trying to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of their respective lands under the guise of a false sale deed and the proceedings of the District Collector. The suits are pending adjudication and the Bhoodan Yagna Board is resisting the suits claiming the land of 103 acres in Sy.No.219/5 to have been purchased by the Board under a registered Sale deed No.424/1977 dated 29-12-1976 from Smt. K. Rajeswari Devi since when the Board was in possession. While so, the revision petitioners filed identical applications before the trial Court invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the trial Court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant sufficient time to adduce evidence in their respective suits till disposal of W.P.No.323 of 2008 in which an order of status quo was granted against the parties in respect of the suit lands. The respondent opposed the request on the ground that it was in pursuance of the orders of the High Court that CMAs were disposed of by the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, concerning the grant of interim injunction pending the suits directing to dispose of the suits on merits within two months from the date of its orders and any protraction of the proceedings to enable grabbing of property by the revision petitioners should be avoided. The trial Court in identical orders noted that all the four suits were posted for trial and in WPMPNo.334 of 2008, dated 8-1-2008, order of status quo was granted on a prayer not to effect any mutation of the lands. While status quo concerning mutation should be maintained by virtue of the said orders, the High Court did not stay the proceedings in these suits pending disposal of the writ petition and as the suits are only for perpetual injunctions simpliciter, which have to be adjudicated on the basis of oral and documentary evidence of both parties concerning the possession of the respective suit properties, the parties need not await a decision on the aspect of the title in the writ petition. The trial Court also considered the relief sought for to be vague, the matter involved in the writ petition to be not concerned with the disposal of the suits and the request to be untenable in the face of the direction from the Senior Civil Judge to dispose of the suits preferably within two (2) months, more so, in the absence of any direction from the High Court itself. It also observed that there is no provision under the Code of Civil Procedure to grant time indefinitely in the absence of any stay order by the Appellate Court. Consequently, the trial Court dismissed the four applications without costs. Identical grounds were raised against the said orders by the revision petitioners contending that the spirit and object of inherent power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure will be defeated, if the impugned orders are not interfered with. As a status quo order was passed by the High Court in W.P.No.323 of 2008 and as the proceedings of the District Collector declaring the lands to be Bhoodan land are in question in the writ petition, any determination of the suits before the determination of the writ petition will result in miscarriage of justice and the absence of any direction from the High Court is immaterial. Hence, the revision petitioners sought for reversing the said orders. Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri N. Naveen Kumar, learned standing counsel for the respondent are heard at length and the matters are being disposed of at the stage of admission with consent. The point for consideration in all the four revisions is as to whether the further proceedings in the suits should stand stayed till disposal of the writ petition? All the four suits are admittedly for a permanent injunction simpliciter against interference by the respondent with the possession and enjoyment of the respective plaintiffs over the respective suit lands and it is well settled that in a suit for mere injunction, the question of title may arise only for incidental and ancillary determination, while the main question in controversy to be decided would be lawful possession of the property claimed by the date of the suit. The revision petitioners trace their claim to possession and enjoyment to allotment said to have been made by the District Collector in favour of Dharawath Chokla on 24-2-1956, his legal representatives succeeding to the alleged land and the revision petitioners and 2 others purchasing portions of the land about 15 years prior to filing of W.P.No.323 of 2008. Their claim to possession and enjoyment by the dates of filing of the respective suits is thus attempted to be claimed to be lawful. It is true that the proceedings of the District Collector in question in W.P.No.323 of 2008 may have an adverse impact on the claims of the revision petitioners, but without going deeper into the questions in controversy, which need to be determined either in the writ petition or in the suits, it will be suffice to note that the situation admittedly does not fall under any express provision of the Code of Civil Procedure including Section 10 thereof and the invocation of the inherent powers of the Civil Court alone can be the way for making any such request for the revision petitioners. The respondent traces its claim through a registered Sale deed dated 29-12-1976 from one Smt. K. Rajeswari Devi and the truth, genuineness and binding nature of the sale deed is questioned by the writ petitioners. The trial Court granted an interim injunction in favour of respective revision petitioners obviously being prima facie satisfied about their claim of being in possession by the dates of respective suits which was confirmed in the respective CMAs and when the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, directed, while disposing of the appeals, the trial Court to dispose of the suits within two months, the trial Court could not have resorted to not proceeding with the trial in the suits and await the result of the writ petition even if the subject matter of both matters are overlapping. The direction in the CMAs to the extent of mandating the disposal of the suits within two months had become final without any further challenge and the disposal of CMAs themselves was on the directions of this Court. As the title to the properties is not the primary question in issue in the suits and as such questions arise only for incidental determination, the compliance with the directions of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, by the trial Court, the protection of interests of the revision petitioners to have their claims adjudicated by the High Court in the writ petition and the protection of interests of the respondent and the allottees under the respondent have to be balanced without either permitting any indefinite stay of proceedings in the suits or denying an opportunity for the revision petitioners to have the writ petition decided within a reasonable time. While the trial of the suits can be permitted to go on, the revision petitioners can be afforded a breathing time by requesting the trial Court not to dispose of the suits on merits finally within some specified reasonable time so as to enable the revision petitioners to request the High Court appropriately for an expeditious disposal of the writ petition on merits. Such a via-media course can be adopted, more so, when the result of the writ petition on merits will have some bearing on appreciating the lawful nature of the possession claimed by the respective revision petitioners. The adjudication of the claim of the respondent to possession by itself or through its allottees will be dependent on the success or failure of the writ petitioners in proving their possession and enjoyment by the dates of respective suits, more so, under a lawful claim. Therefore, the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir shall proceed with the trial of the respective suits in obedience to the directions of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir in the respective CMAs, but may withhold its judgment on merits in these suits till after 28-2-2011 in the event of the trial in these suits being completed before that date and the revision petitioners are at liberty to take appropriate steps in the meanwhile to have W.P.No.323 of 2008 decided on merits by the High Court in the meanwhile. The Civil Revision Petitions are ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 31-12-2010 Ksn