THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.31939 of 1998 DATED: 20.04.2007 Between: Kishanlal Chowhan .. Petitioner. And Secretary for Home, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION No.31939 of 1998 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents not to allow any persons to encroach or to make any construction on land forming part of Survey No.403 (old S.No.129) admeasuring 8.00 acres situated at Road No.10 abutting the road of Chiran Fort and road leading to Road No.14 thereby enforcing the stay order passed in W.P.M.P.No.2063 of 1996 in W.P.No.1716 of 1996 and status quo order passed by V Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad in I.A.No.293 of 1987 in O.S.No.894 of 1997, and further, a direction may be issued to the 2nd respondent to send the records as called for by the Junior civil Judge in I.A.No.930 of 1998 in O.S.No.4191 of 1992, and respondent no.5 to furnish the certified copies of the documents as per copy application, dated 29.08.1997, submitted by the petitioner and consequently, to pass such other or further orders under the circumstances of the case. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he is the absolute owner and possessor of 8 acres of agricultural land in sy.no.403 corresponding to old survey no.129 along with his residential quarters situated at Shaikpet village, Golconda Revenue Mandal, Hyderabad District and that he inherited the said property from his father, who was allotted the land by the Collector Atraf Balda. It is specifically submitted by the petitioner that when the officials of the revenue department of the State of Andhra Pradesh tried to interfere with his possession, he filed O.S.No.4415 of 1985 on the file of X Assistant Judge, Civil Court, Hyderabad, and the same was decreed. Against the said O.S., the Government preferred A.S.No.57 of 19990 and the same was also dismissed on 22.11.1990. During the pendency of A.S.No.57 of 1990, the petitioner filed O.S.No.894 of 1997 on the file of V Additional Judge, Civil Court, Hyderabad, for declaration of title and injunction and the said Court while granting status-quo order dated 29.04.1992 in I.A.No.263 of 1987, which is subsisting, observed that no construction should be made on the suit land by parties to the suit. Thereafter, aggrieved by the dismissal orders passed in A.S.No.57 of 1990, second appeal was preferred by the Government, wherein it was observed that mere suit for injunction without declaration was not proper and allowed the second appeal on the limited ground that a suit for mere injunction is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration of title, and the same was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.7670 of 1992, wherein initially notice was ordered to the respondents and stay of dispossession was granted and subsequently, the S.L.P. was dismissed. The main grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of passing of the status quo order in I.A.No.263 of 1987 in O.S.No.894 of 1987, dated 29.04.1992, the respondents are encouraging the third parties to encroach and make constructions in his land. It is his further contention that after the disposal of A.S.No.57 of 1990, he filed L.G.C.No.44 of 1991 before the Land Grabbing Court and the same was disposed of. Thereafter, as against the said order of L.G.C., the petitioner filed W.P.No.1716 of 1996, wherein the Court passed interim orders in W.P.M.P.No.2063 of 1996, dated 02.02.1996, staying the operation of orders passed in L.G.C. No.44 of 1991 and later, the interim stay was made absolute by order dated 25.02.1996. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that as there was continuous interference of the third parties in trespassing into his land, he filed O.S.No.4191 of 1992 on the file of XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Subsequently, he also filed an application on 29.08.1997 in the office of the 5th respondent to permit him to inspect the records and also furnish him with the certified copies of the documents mentioned in his application. Further, he also filed a petition, being I.A.No.933 of 1998 in O.S.No.4191 of 1992 for production of documents by the 5th respondent and the same was allowed on 13.08.1998, and that in spite of his giving the complaint on 24.10.1998 to the respondents 2 to 7 and others, they have not taken any action. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Shankar Sanghi stated though the petitioner is the absolute owner of the land in question, the respondents i.e, particularly respondent Nos.2,3 and 4 are trying to interfere with his peaceful possession at the instance of third parties. Though the suit filed by the petitioner, being O.S.No.4415 of 1985 on the file of X Assistant Judge, Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the Government seeking permanent injunction was decreed, and the appeal preferred by the Government in A.S.No.57 of 1990 was dismissed, as against which, second appeal was preferred, wherein it was allowed on limited ground that a suit for mere injunction is not maintainable without seeking relief of declaration of title, as declaration of title was not conferred, the petitioner filed O.S.No.894 of 1987 and the Court was pleased to order status quo in I.A.No.263 of 1987 dated 29.04.1992. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, despite of all these facts, the respondents are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner and hence, he approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. 5. Despite the fact that this Court issue rule nisi and the respondents are served with notices, the respondents have not chosen to file any counter. Hence, this Court has no option, but to accept the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. So long as the petitioner continuous to be the legal owner of the lands in question, the respondents have no right whatsoever to interfere with his peaceful possession. Accordingly, the respondents 1 to 7, except the respondent no.5, are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner, provided, he is the legal owner of the lands in question. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he filed O.S.No.4191 of 1992 on the file of XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for a direction to the defendants therein, who are the third parties, not to interfere with his peaceful possession, and that in the said O.S., he filed an application i.e., I.A.No.933 of 1998 to call for the records from the 5th respondent. Though XIX Junior Civil Judge, before whom the said suit was pending, ordered the said petition and directed the 5th respondent to send the records, the records were not sent. 7. Now, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the said records are not required in the said suit, but having regard to the fact that he filed an appeal against the judgment passed in O.S.No.894 of 1997 on the file of V Additional Judge, Civil Court, Hyderabad, for declaration of his title and injunction, the said records are required in the said appeal and hence, seeks direction to the fifth respondent to furnish certified copies of the said record. In fact, in this Writ Petition also, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.39193 of 1998 wherein orders were passed on 17.12.1998 directing the 5th respondent to furnish the certified copies of the documents as requested by the petitioner in his copy application dated 29.08.1998, if they are available and it is permissible according to Rules to issue such documents. 8. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said interim direction, the 5th respondent has not furnished any documents. If really it is a fact that the said records are available and the petitioner is entitled to have the certified copies of such documents, the 5th respondent is hereby directed to furnish the certified copies of the documents as requested by him in his copy application dated 29.08.1998 after collecting required fee. 9. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J) 20.04.2007 v v