THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.1627 of 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 29.02.2008, passed by the learned VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, in C.M.A.No.104 of 2007 confirming the dismissal order, dated 07.09.2007, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka in I.A.No.513 of 2007 in O.S.No.145 of 2007 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of interim injunction against the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. 2. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title over the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction. The said I.A. filed by the petitioners for grant of interim injunction was dismissed by the trial Court and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court holding that they failed to establish that they are in possession of the land in dispute for a period of 30 years and that they are not entitled for adverse possession as the land was acquired by the Government for industrial development. Hence, this revision petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since more than three decades by constructing thatched huts and are paying property tax and electricity charges regularly. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the land in question was originally acquired by the Government for industrial purpose and it was allotted to Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation. 5. Perused the material on record. The petitioners have admitted in the plaint that the suit schedule land i.e., Sy.Nos.46/4 and 5 was acquired by the Government long back in the year 1967 for the purpose of industrial development projects at Visakhapatnam and that the other part of the suit schedule land i.e., in Sy.Nos.48 and 49 belongs to the Government. In the writ petition filed by the petitioners, this Court directed the respondents to conduct inspection along with Zonal Manager, APIIC, or other allottees, if any and the appeal preferred by them was dismissed as withdrawn granting liberty to them to pursue their remedy before the civil Court. Though they have relied upon certain documents viz., house property tax and bunch of electricity bills, they do not reflect their possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property since more than 30 years. For grant of an interim injunction, the petitioners have to place relevant material to establish a prima facie case in their favour. Except the above said documents, they have not produced any material with regard to their ownership in the suit schedule property. Therefore, I am of the opinion that both the Courts below have given cogent and convincing reasons for not granting the interim injunction in favour of the petitioners and there is no need to interfere by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 09.07.2010 sj