IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.75 OF 2007 DATED:24.06.2010 Between: Manikchand … Petitioner And Scheduled Castes Rights Protection Society Medchal (V&M), RR Dist., rep. by its General Secretary, P. Satyanarayana S/o. P. Ramulu, R/o. H. No.3-21 Medchal and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.75 OF 2007 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Tract Court), Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, in C.M.A. No.92 of 2006, on 22.9.2006. In the petition for grant of temporary injunction pending the suit in I.A. No.255 of 2005 in O.S. No.50 of 2005 on his file, the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, passed a contested order on 27.12.2005. The trial Court observed that the plaintiff society claimed ownership and possession of the suit property for the purpose of B.R. Ambedkar Bhavan on an allotment made by the Gram Panchayat in 1992 and further approval made by the Gram Panchayat. Funds were sanctioned by the Scheduled Castes Corporation in pursuance of the allotment in the gramakantam land. The defendants have absolutely no right and interest over the property. The first defendant contested the petition while the petition was dismissed as not pressed against the second defendant. The first defendant pleaded that the existence of the building is within 100 sq. yards and under its guise the plaintiff society is trying to grab the property which he had purchased from the original owner under a registered sale deed. The said plot No.1 measuring 117 sq. yards is not part of gramakantam land. The trial Court found after marking Exs.A.1 to A.3 and Exs.B.1 to B.6 during the course of the enquiry that the plaintiff did not file any title deed or revenue documents in support of its case and only filed photographs apart from the Memo issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the authorization letter issued by the society. The trial Court referred to the registered document, permission certificate etc., filed by the defendants and found that the plaintiff has failed to prove prima facie case due to which the petition for injunction was dismissed. In the appeal against the said order, the impugned order was passed. Referring to the contentions of the parties, the appellate Court felt that Exs.A.1 to A.3 revealed the existence of Ambedkar Bhavan of the plaintiff society, whereas the documents of the defendants show that it is a private patta land and not gramakantam land. The appellate Court also observed that the permission was granted for construction in gramakantam land and the said land was not under the ownership of Mohd. Jamal, the original owner and possessor of the land now claimed by the defendants. The appellate Court also referred to the boundaries mentioned in the documents of the defendants not tallying and referred to the permission for construction of B.R. Ambedkar Bhavan in 345 sq. yards within the plinth area of 100 sq. yards. Considering that prima facie there are chances of success for the plaintiff in the litigation in the facts and circumstances, the appellate Court considered that the said gramakantam land for which the Gram Panchayat is the custodian cannot be affected by Exs.B.1 to B.6 documents produced by the defendants and the defendants were considered to have not probablized their continuous possession over the suit land prior to the suit. Therefore, the Appellate Court set aside the order of the trial Court and granted an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. Though notice of the revision petition was served on the first respondent/plaintiff, no one entered appearance on behalf of first respondent and the second respondent was stated to be not necessary party to the revision petition. Sri B. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, is heard. The point for consideration is, in what best possible manner the rights and interests of both the parties should be preserved and protected pending the suit. The construction site claimed by the plaintiff was stated as per the documents on record to have been found to be part of gramakantam site as per the report of the Mandal Surveyor and the letter of the Mandal Revenue Officer, whereas the property claimed by the defendants is described as private property covered by registered sale deed etc., relied on by them. The existence of B.R. Ambedkar Bhavan in the suit land is not in dispute and it is seen from the counter affidavit in the injunction petition filed by the revision petitioner that what is sought to be contended is that the existence of the building is only within 100 sq. yards and the plaintiff – society cannot claim an extent of 345 sq. yards as mentioned in the suit. The plaintiff seeks to represent the rights and interests of the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and the society appears to have been formed to protect the rights of such persons and for the said purpose the building in question is intended to serve as the place of activity and such a laudable object should not be allowed to be frustrated pending the suit, in view of the admitted existence of B.R. Ambedkar Bhavan admittedly located in an extent of 100 sq. yards. At the same time, the claims of the defendants that they have validly purchased the respective sites under registered sale deeds and their tracing the title and possession to their predecessors cannot also be ex facie described as baseless. The crucial issue in controversy in the suit between the parties would be the location and demarcation of the gramakantam land and the private patta land adjacent to each other and any clarity on the location and extent of the respective lands can come only after the evidence of both parties is placed before the Court and the trial Court goes into the same for arriving at the broad human probabilities arising out of such evidence. Therefore, under the circumstances, either the absence of any restraint or the presence of positive restraint may cause incalculable harm to the rights and interests of either party and it would be in the interest of justice to preserve the state of things obtaining as on today in the suit property till a final decision of the matter on merits by the Court and to avoid any abnormal delay and protraction of trial, the trial Court can be directed to expedite the trial and disposal of the suit which is sufficiently old having been instituted in 2005. The order of the first appellate court has to be modified accordingly under the above circumstances, more so as status quo as on that day was already ordered by this Court in C.R.P.M.P. No.93 of 2007 on 24.9.2007, which continued to be in force till today. Therefore, the judgment and decree in C.M.A. No.92 of 2006 on the file of the VI Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, is modified directing both the parties to the suit to maintain status quo as on today in respect of the suit schedule property till the final determination of the suit on merits, and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity to both parties in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly with the above directions. No costs. _____________________ (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 24.06.2010 bnr