THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.560 of 2009 Dated:20.01.2010 Between: B.Sashikala. …Appellant and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Chief Secretary, Govt.of A.P., Secretariat, Hyderabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.560 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The appeal is against the interlocutory order dated 25.03.2009 of the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.3085 of 2008 in O.S.No.145 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the application made by the sole appellant (plaintiff) for an injunction restraining the State of Andhra Pradesh and its Officials from i) altering and changing the nature of the suit schedule property by carrying out any development work and ii) from allotting, transferring, assigning, selling or regularizing the suit schedule property in the name of any other third party, was dismissed. The case of the appellant to the extent necessary for the purpose of this appeal may be noticed. The land admeasuring considerable extent, out of Acs.2900.00 in old survey No.129 (new survey No.403) of Shaikpet Village in erstwhile Hyderabad west taluk was given by the Nizam to Raja Kishan Das, Triambuk Das and others. Raja Kishan Das sold Acs.3.01 guntas to one Arjun Varma and four others who conveyed 2250 square yards in favour of Ft.Lt. Rudraraju Venkata Raju. He in turn sought exemption from the Government, which was duly granted in G.O.Ms.No.433, dated 19.02.1975, and sold 1168 square yards under a document dated 30.03.1982 to one Dr.R.Sudha. In addition, he also sold 1082 square yards under registered sale deed dated 01.04.1982 to Bhupathi Raju Lakshmi Narsimha Raju from whom the plaintiff purchased the land under two registered sale deeds dated 11.01.1985 and 16.01.1985. According to the plaintiff, the said land was also assessed under Non-Agricultural Land Assessment Act, 1963. Subsequent thereto, the plaintiff and Dr.R.Sudha instituted O.S.No.1167 of 1985 on the file of the Court of the VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for permanent injunction and the same was dismissed for default on 04.11.1993. In the said suit the Government through the District Collector, Hyderabad, filed written statement denying and disputing the title of Dr.R.Sudha and the plaintiff. In the meanwhile, the Government instituted case before the Special Court constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. The same, being L.G.C.No.18 of 1990, was allowed declaring the Government to be the owner of the property. The plaintiff was not arrayed as party respondent and it is only Dr.R.Sudha, who was arrayed as first respondent therein. Be that as it is, after obtaining favourable orders from the Special Court in L.G.C.No.18 of 1990, the Government dispossessed Dr.R.Sudha as well as the plaintiff on 09.05.2005. Thus, from that date onwards, admittedly, the possession of the land is with the defendants – the Government, and the writ petition filed by Dr.R.Sudha assailing the judgment of the Special Court was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 25.07.2006. Subsequent thereto, the plaintiff got issued notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), and instituted the suit for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule property admeasuring 1082 square yards comprised in Municipal No.8-2-602/2/A, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, and for a consequential permanent injunction as well as damages for wrongful use. The State of Andhra Pradesh is opposing the suit, inter alia, on the ground that in L.G.C.No.18 of 1990 the Special Court has already declared the Government to be the owner of the land and the plaintiff had no title to the property. The plaintiff filed I.A.No.3085 of 2008 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for interim injunction and restraining the defendants from altering and changing the nature of the property and from allotting, transferring or regularizing the same in favour of others. The allegations and averments made by the plaintiff in support of her interlocutory application are the same. In the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector opposing I.A.No.3085 of 2008, while denying the various allegations and submissions made by the plaintiff, the District Collector opposed the grant of ad interim injunction stating that there are no structures, that it is a vacant land and that in view of the pendency of the suit the question of regularizing the suit schedule property in favour of others as per the guidelines contained in G.O.Ms.No.166 dated 16.02.2008 does not arise and that the allegations made by the plaintiff that it is being allotted to others are baseless. The various documents produced by the plaintiff were marked as Exs.A1 to A23 and defendants as Exs.B1 to B7 in the interlocutory application. The Court below having appreciated these documents came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was dispossessed pursuant to the orders of the Special Court in L.G.C.No.18 of 1990 which was confirmed by the High Court and has no prima facie case to seek the injunction restraining the defendants from raising any constructions or from alienating in favour of others. The Court below also observed that if ultimately any prejudice or loss is caused to plaintiff she can be compensated by awarding damages. In this appeal the learned Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the reasoning of the learned Chief Judge while dismissing the petition is erroneous, that the plaintiff was not a party before Special Court, and that the plaintiff having proved her prima facie case with reference to registered documents is entitled to seek injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the property or raising constructions so as to protect her rights. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader for arbitration submits that the Government is the rightful owner of the suit schedule property, that the Government is in possession of the property from 09.05.2005, and therefore, they cannot be injuncted from dealing with the property in the manner they desire. He also points out that after filing the suit the plaintiff submitted an application on 21.05.2008 under G.O.Ms.No.166 seeking regularization without specifically endorsing that such application is without prejudice to her rights, and therefore, she is estopped from claiming title. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s.Mahalaxmi Motors Limited v Mandal Revenue Officer[1]. In view of the case, counter case and the rival submissions made before us, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the Government may be injuncted from altering the nature of the property by taking out development work, and/or by injuncting, transferring, selling, alienating and regularizing in favour of the others. It is axiomatic that the plaintiff so as to seek ad interim injunction to maintain status quo pending the suit and adjudication of rights has to necessarily prove the legal injury that would occasion if such an injunction is not granted. No doubt the proof of prima facie case, balance of convenience and hardship are three conditionalities subject to which the Court must exercise discretion while granting injunction. But in every case where prima facie case is proved, an injunction need not be granted. It is also axiomatic that if relief of injunction can be compensated in terms of money, even if the plaintiff proves prima facie case, in the absence of proven legal injury no such order can be passed. In the counter affidavit filed by the District Collector in the Court below denying the allegations of plaintiff with regard to regularization it is stated as under. In reply to the averments made in Para 6 of the affidavit, I submit that the allegations made therein by the Petitioner referring G.O.Ms.No.166, dated 16-02-2008 and regularization of the land there under etc., are no way related to the present claim of the Petitioner. In fat, the land in question is vacant on ground and has been in possession of the Government as such the question of regularizing the same to third parties do not arise at all. Further the Petitioner is claiming property within an extent of 1082 sq yards that to with existing house thereon. I humbly submit that when the identification of the property as described in the Plaint by the petitioner is in question, the Petitioner without establishing that there exists a house as described by her, cannot seek any relief much less the interim relief as sought for in the present application. However, it would be clarified for appreciation that as per the G.O.Ms.No.166, no property can be regularized if any suit or proceedings are pending before any court of law in respect of the same. Therefore, the apprehension of the Petitioner that the Government might regularize the property in question to third parties is baseless. I humbly submit that no relief can be sought merely on apprehensions and assumptions. The above statement would show that indisputably as long as the suit is pending the question of regularization, allotment or sale would not arise and to that extent, the learned Government Pleader would not deny the legal position. Insofar as the applicability of Doctrine of Estoppel is concerned, we may extract the law declared by the Supreme Court in Mahalaxmi Motors Limited (supra), wherein it is held. It was possible for the appellant to file an application for regularization of land without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the pending proceedings, but having regard to the decisions rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in two writ petitions, it would be fair to presume that the appellant filed the said application knowing fully well as to where it stood. Once it had taken as specified stand knowing fully well that it had no right, title and interest in or over the land in question. It cannot in law turn round and contend that the same was not binding on it. Doctrine of estoppel in a situation of this nature, in our opinion, would squarely apply. An abstract belief on the part of the appellant that its vendor had a marketable title and it was getting a good title to the land is not decisive. Whether any action was taken by the authorities of the State in regard to the possession of Ramender Reddy or the appellant, in our opinion, is wholly irrelevant inasmuch Ramender Reddy and consequently the appellant had no title over the property nor acquired any title by prescription. Law does not contemplate any vacuum in the title. Either the State had the title or the appellant and its predecessor. In this case indisputably plaintiff submitted an application under G.O.Ms.No.166 for regularization on 21.05.2008. No doubt, in column 8 thereof she has mentioned the particulars of the suit. As pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, there is no such specific endorsement that such application is made “without prejudice to her rights”. Even otherwise, as held by the Supreme Court in Mahalaxmi Motors Limited (supra) mention or non-mention of the words “without prejudice” would not make any difference. When once an application is made, certainly there is an element of doubt on the plaintiff’s title. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order. However, we may record the submissions of the learned Government Pleader that as of now there is no such proposal to develop the land or allot to any third parties. In view of this we also observe that the defendants should take necessary steps to protect the property. Now that written statement is filed, we direct the Court below or any other Court to which the suit is transferred, to dispose of the suit itself expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without seeking extension of time. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 20.01.2010 Note: Dispatch a copy of this order in one week. B/o. vs [1] (2007) 11 SCC 714 = 2007 AIR SCW 7026