IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.976 of 2010 Between: Muddada Gouri Naidu and another. … Petitioners And State of A.P., reptd., by the Collector, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District and others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri P.V.Vidya Sagar. Counsel for the respondents: AGP for Arbitration. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 29-10-2009, in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.51 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam (for short “the lower appellate Court”), which confirmed order dated 16-10-2008 in I.A.No.324 of 2008 in O.S.No.244 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam (for short “the trial Court”). I have heard Sri P.V.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration, representing the respondents. The petitioners filed O.S.No.244 of 2008 for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.11.00. Along with the suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.324 of 2008 for temporary injunction. In support of their plea that they are in possession of the property in question, the petitioners have filed Exs.P.1 to P.16. The respondents have filed Exs.R.1 to R.4. While dealing with the documentary evidence filed by the petitioners, the trial Court in paragraph 17 of its order, inter alila, observed as under: “ … Thus in total the Exs.P.12 and P.13 are issued for a total extent of six acres and odd. If really the present petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for injunction in respect of land for an extent of six acres and odd as contained in Exs.P.12 and P.13 certainly the petitioners are entitled to get injunction against the respondents. However, as can be seen from the schedule, the present petition is filed for total extent of Ac.11.00. If the present petition is allowed by granting an injunction, it deems that the injunction can be granted for total extent of Ac.11.00 as mentioned in the schedule …”. However, while accepting the plea of the respondents that the whole suit schedule property was handed over to the Deputy Executive Engineer, S.C. Corporation, Srikakulam, on 12-3-2007 for rehabilitation to the displaced families due to formation of B.R.R. Project, Vamsadhara, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. In the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the petitioners, a similar reasoning of the trial Court was adopted by the lower appellate Court in para 12 of its order, but even the lower appellate Court also dismissed the I.A. The learned counsel for the petitioners was very critical, and indeed rightly so, of the reasonings of both the Courts below by contending that having on the one side made unequivocal observations that the petitioners would have been entitled to grant of injunction in respect of Ac.6.56 cents on the strength of Exs.P.12 and P.13, rejected the petitioners application for injunction, in toto, without atleast confining the relief to the extent of Ac.6.56 cents covered by the said two exhibits. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration, on the contrary, sought to support the orders of the Courts below by stating that under Ex.R.2 the possession of the land was handed over to the Deputy Executive Engineer, S.C.Corporation, Srikakulam, on 12-3-2007 itself. In my opinion, the Courts below have committed an error in rendering contradictory findings. If they were satisfied that under Ex.R.2 possession was given, the observations noted above in respect of Ac.6.56 cents should have been avoided. As there is a serious dispute regarding the factum of handing over of the possession mainly on the ground that Ex.R.2 is undated and nothing is discernable from the material on record as to when possession was handed over, it is appropriate that the parties shall maintain status quo existing as on today atleast to the extent of Ac.6.56 cents covered by Exs.P.12 and P.13, till the disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed directing both the parties to maintain status quo existing as on today with regard to Ac.6.56 cents covered by Exs.P.12 and P.13. --------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:01-4-2011 MNR