THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.1276 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.71 of 2009 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Markapur against the respondent for the relief of perpetual injunction. He pleaded that being the owner of land admeasuring Ac.3.44 cents in Survey No.37/2 of Obulakkapalle Village, he sold an extent of Ac.2.00 on the eastern side to the respondent, through a sale deed, dated 25.08.2008. The respondent is said to have established a petrol bunk with road access on the southern side. The petitioner states that a strip of 30 feet land was provisionally earmarked for rastha in the rest of the land and since no such development has taken place, he raised crop. Alleging that the respondent is trying to damage the crop on the portion shown as rastha, he prayed for the relief of perpetual injunction. The petitioner has also filed I.A.No.300 of 2009 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. The application was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court allowed the I.A. through order, dated 30.09.2009. The respondent filed C.M.A.No.4 of 2009 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Markapur. The lower appellate Court allowed the C.M.A. through order, dated 25.02.2011. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent became the absolute owner of Ac.2.00 of land, which he purchased from the petitioner. The land abuts the national highway on the southern side. A petrol bunk was established on a part of the land. The vacant site after establishment of the petrol bunk is in ‘L’ shape and one of its limbs abuts the national highway. It may be true that in the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent, a lane is shown on the western side of the sold out property. However, the lane has neither vested in the Gram Panchayat nor any development has taken place. Except that it was earmarked, the use of the land did not change. It is not as if the respondent derived any right vis-à-vis the lane or that it has vested, in any way, in the Gram Panchayat. There was absolutely no basis for the respondent to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the suit schedule property. The interests of the respondent can be protected by directing that the petitioner shall not alienate or alter the permanent features of the suit land. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order in C.M.A.No.4 of 2009 is set aside. The order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court shall be in force, subject, however, to the condition that the petitioner shall not alienate or change the physical features of the land, but can raise the crops upon it. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 29.06.2011 Jsu THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.1276 of 2011 Date: 29.06.2011 JSU