SRl. K v. RA.TASREE Counsel forthe

Petition und'er Article 226 of the Constitution of tndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing order dated 8.3.2019 in OS.No.112 ot 2O1O on the file of the Agent of the Government being illegal and contrary to the order in CRP.No.400 of 2013, dated 17.4.2013 by the Hon'ble High Court as unreasonable, unjusl, arbitrary and consequenfly direct 1 l i I I the 2nd rr,sl>orr,lent to club and conduct trial of both OS No OS.No.151 ol itcl1 lA NO: 1 OF 20 l13 12 of 2O1O and Petrt o r Lrrrrrer section 151 cpc praying that in the 0r-cu,stances stated in the affid;lv t ti ed in support of the petition, the High Court mrry be pleased to direct the rilsconcents not to interefere in peacefur possiession cf the petitioner,s land admeas ur rrry Ac 5.00cents in Sy. No.154lJA situated i rt Chaperlapalli Revenue r.,i la qr: lr4ulakalapally tVlandal, Khammam District. pen,ling disposal of the above v,ri tr,: tition IANO:2OF2 019 Between: Daravath Housewi[e: Distri( t. AND )admavathi, Wo.Venkateswarlu, Ageda b,.1ut j2 years, Occ R/o Chaparapali vilage, vrrir"iiiJiiy " ii;n,i;. r[f;rrrm ..PETITIONERYRESTI ONDENT NO.6 1 ji:l1ll."^'{,^::ff lxLlJB,"8}I"iff 5;:ii1,.fBE?,,igllHn.l3oJf, "[i;#5[ FI Kh rnrn)ant District. 6[:'rJlP,ill,A"rGovernmeni ...RESPONDENTM/RI PETITIONER 2. Tl-rer Stat': of Telanoa o' its Principal s€3retary, Tribal . Del)a,rrnr(]11, s+retrri"i, ff]'0"[B?0. , and Districr Coilector, Bhadrac ri Kothagudem 4. Th( ::itl':ciai Assislant .. Agent_cum_Sub Divisrona Magistrate, . Bta dr aoh atam. Bha_dradri Xotnag-ud;r;6[il'ci c. vla,to r' lievenue Officer Mulalakapalli Maridai, Kl,amnram )jstrict 6. The Villa gler Revenue Offir _ Marrd;al, h.trammam Oi.tri"ir, ' i':?fflf : iil a:,:'l ),, ?[1x or@,,,fi ifi !?fl^^y,1?;]flsB:$i:? , Additional Chaparlapalli v;tligr,, l\,iuEkatapatti ,,|lfrffij; tJfi,Yeerappa' Rr/o'chaparaparri virrase, Mutakarapa,v Rao R, : cha para pa,, i il,??ili,,ln#fl,?#il8,,.I"", nrocnapaiapJiii virr"ge, Murakarapauy ^i ...RESPONDENTS/RESpONDENT Nos. 1toS&7to9 Petitiorr urder Section 151 cpc praying that in the circums ances stated in the affidavit filerl i r support of the petition, the High Co.lrt nray t e pleased to -7 vacate the interim orders made in I A.No.l of 2019 in W P.No 9882 of 2019 dated 30-04-201 I in the interests of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K. V. RA.TASREE Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1to5: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent Nos' 6to9: SRI K. DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following: ORDER ]'HI) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KIJM6.R WRIT PETITION No.9882 of 2crl9 ORDER l'rrs \\ rLr Petition is filed lo declare the action lf the 2".i rcsponrc nt r r passing the order, dt.08.03.201!), in OS No.l 12 of 201O on thL llle ol the Agent ol the Gove rnmerrt -2r,l :e ;pondent, as ltei-Llt iil.rgal and contrary to the order ol il'rLs Court, dr. 1 /.ij.l- -l .r I I ilr CRP.No.400 o1 20 13, rvittr a -:on: equential drrc<:l.ic n rl, llr,r 2,r(L rcspondenr to club O.S.No. L Ll of 201O and O.S. No I 'j t r f 201 1 on the file of the Special ,Assis raur Agent to (iovc rn.l,:r' t -:'um Sub Divisional Magistrate(lviob Ie lourt) at lSJrarlr-:t Lr ,r n-.1,,1 rcspondent, and conduct con molr trial in 1 boih tht'sr.ii;.

2. i ,: ,:,I Sntr I(.V.Ra.ja Sri, Iearne d rutlrr st,l for ttrc pr:LiLiorirr. : uricl ()ovt-.rnnrent I)lcadcr lor Sociat \\, _-lfare lor rcspr.rncl:. l \.).i. I ro 5, Sri K.Dur-ga Prasad, Ie:tr.nr:cl r:r unsel for unofljc t:il r: :; trc',nde nt Nos.6 to 9, and perusecl Lie r_.r:irr l.

3. 'lrr' iri ei lircts giving risc to filing of the p:e;ent writ peritto;t i. t c Ii-t:rL. thc petitioncr c]aims to have purr:ite sed Iand admi:asrrit'r1 Ar:re s 5.OO gunts in survey No. l i4/._lA si .uated at 2 Chaperlapalli Revenue Village, Mulkalapally Mandal, Khammam District, from the 86 respondent under an agreement of sale, dt.O3.12.2OO9; that thc 6th rr:spondent is also claiming Lhe samc .said land having purchased the same under an agreemenl ol sale entered into with the husband of the 8h respondent; and thus, thcre is a dispute between the two parties in relation to the same schedule Property.

4. Petitioner further contends that the 6e respondent has filed a suit uide O.S.No.1 12 of 2O1O for pe rpetual injunction before the 2"d respondenl and afler knor't'ing the samc, she also liled another suit uide o.S.No.151 of 2011 bcfore the 3d respondent. However, the suit hled by the petitioner was disposcd of by the 3'd respondent on O5.72'2O12, while the suit filed by the 6h respondent, though is earlier in point of time' rs pending before the 2"d respondent with regard to the same subject matter between the same parties'

5. Petitioncr further conlends as against the said ordcr passed by the 3rd respondent in OS No'151 of 2011' she has hled CRP.No.4OO of 2O13 before this Court, and this Court has disposed of the said revision holding that the suit filed bv the f) 3 petitlo 1( r L:r I)c maintainable and transferre(l th ]r sL it liled by the p,rtitic trr uide OS.No.1.5 1 of 2O11 to rhe 2"d reslrondent to bc trir: I rnc dLsposed of along with OS.No.1 12 of 20 lC . (t. l)arL jr-i,) r('r lurther r:ontcnds that desptte ltts Court in cRp.l\1,r. Lrl :;f 2rlll3 had issuecl spccific dircction. rhc iuit of the petiliclrcr- 'rlrle' O.S.No.15l of 2011 was not ,ransli:r ed to the file of l-r:: .2'r respondent for being clubbing rvith OS No. 1 12 of 2O10 :rntJ I,r1)ceedcd u.ith Lrial. Ftrr iti.r)er lurther contends the 2.a restrrondent. ho',l,ever,

7. procee(ic l r r, adjudicatc the suit uide O .S No. l 1 i2 ol 20 10 in(.lep( rld(r'tl, lrnd noted that Lhc 1.t defcndart in lltc said suit :rcimirtc rl -,1r,: ltrt I ol execurittg agrecme nt of :;irle in r espect of slit sr: -r( dt1[(] propcrty and also delivering posst:ssit,n of the sam6 t( l,rr p L:rintiff thercin i.e., the 6th responden he ein. The 2r.i r€.(;l)cr1,'i,r )t f urther noted that the 6th re spon icn, ./ plaintiff and 1.i :lcfir rclant [herein belong to schedule trib-. ,-:c mmunity and tlLr: sr- it schedule property is situated at rlha terlapalli RevenLLr: 'v Lli ge of Mulkalapally Mandal, whi:h rs .t I agency area, di.',: L:'rl rhc 6t1' respondcnr herein / plainti;f in tlie suiL uide O.S.No. L 12, 2ll0 and 1"t dcfenclant therein .O appr-, rach the 4 concerned Sub-Registrar Ofhce and get the sale deed registered, without considering the order of this Court in CRP.No.4O0i 20 13, and hence, aggrievcd by the aforesaid order, filcd the prcscnl writ Pelrlion.

8. Per contra, learned counsr:l appearing on behalf of the 6s respondent submits that the petitioner approaching this Court and obtaining an order in CRP.No.4O0 of 2O13 has not been brought to the notice of the 2nd respondent, before whom the suit filed by him uide O.S.No. l12 of 2OlO was pending.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 6fi respondent would further contend that the petitioner despite being arrayed as 4tl'respondent in the suit filed by her, did not appear before the Court and also did not bring to the notice of the Court that the suit Iiled by her uide O.S.No.151 of 2011, is to be transferred to the file of the 2nd respondent for being clubbed and tried along with O.S.No.1 t2 of 2OlO in terms of the order of this Court in CRP.No.4OO of 2O13, and as such, the petitioner not only resorted to suppression but also intentionally allowed the 2nd respondent to proceed with the trial of the suit filed by the 6th respondcnt, and thus, it ts not open for the petitioner - 5 now LJ ( ir tr titat the 2"d responden[ having failerl rrt fcrllow the order ()f lirii (-lourt in CRP.No.4O0 ol- 20 13 [o- her ro approach this Clcr.r'L lr Lhc present Writ Petition.

10. l -rtr'r .akc'r'r note of the rcspective subm ssir:rrs rrade I 1. '[h rugir on behalf ol the petitioner it ha; becn < ontended that this C)ttrrr in CRp_No.4OO ol 2013 having pa:;scd an order on I7. )r..lt 3 clubbing the suit filed by the p,rri1.i,)nerulde O.S.No I ';l rl 20 11 with the suit ,ide O.S.No. 112 ol- I O1O filed bl, thc t'r rr sponclent hercin pending bcfore thc 2, ,r re spondent and to ltr: I r r--:1 Lclgether, hou.cver on being qucrir.:d 5\. t tis Court as Lo \!,h('Ll (]. rhe petitioner has liled anv rnel]to br.fi-rr_- Lhe 2n<1 responc Ct Lt lt -irlging to the notice o[ the said trlrLltoritl. r>f the order p,i15 s,. .l .,r. this Court in CRp.No.4OO of 2C, I 3 ir,rl the need O.S.No. t 12 ,r' 201O u,ith rhar of the suit uide O.S Nc.151 of 201 1 filccl 1,, rer, the counsel for petitioner iniriallv to,l i time to enquirc :i:, t, r -r'hcLher any such memo is filed arrd irr so te of the same. tllr ,1,,r re spondent having proccedcd u,itl.r tlrc : ttil uid.e O.S.No.I 1 .l o 2O 1O independently, hou,cver, al-tc r r: .rquiring 6 \ - with the petitioner [airl-v submitted that no such memo has been liled before the 2nd respondent'

12. Though the petitioner had approached this Court and obtained an order in CRP'No 4OO of 2Ol3 on 17 04 2Ol3' it is not shown to this Court what prevented the petitioner lor not bringing thc orcler of this Court to the notice of the 2"d rcspondent, wherebl' Lhe suit filed by the petitioner uide O.S.No. I 51 of 201 1 bcfore thc 3'd respondent' was directed lo be clubbed and tried along with the suit filed by the 6m respondent heteir. uide O S'No tl2 of 2OlO' which is earlier in point of time.

13. Further, a perusal of the order of the 2"d respondent' dt.08-O3.2OOS in OS No. 112 ol 2OlO would also show that the petilioncr hcrein, n'ho is arrayed as 4th defendant in the aforesaid suit, did not appcar therein ancl that the 2"d respondent basing on the admission of the l't defendant therein of she having entered into an agreemen[ of sale and delivcring possession ol the suil schedule property in favour of the 6th respondent hercin as plaintiff' directed the 6n respondent herein/ plaintiff and the I "t defendant therein to get the ,:-... ,aa:l*i-.a **,1 7 agrecmerr[ ]r ,i,tle registered by approaching the lon(.(,l. n ,.c1 Sub_ Registrar t-)li cc and also rroting that the r,r, r.r.spondent hcrcin/P ir :u,'t rncl Lhe l.r cicl'endant bclongrnq tr., s:hedulc l.ribe corr:tLtr ri r and the suit schedule land is alsc i,-,catcd in agcncy ar(,ir.

14. Sin:t_ : tc petitioner herself had lailed t,r br ing to the notice of .hi: rr 1l respondent the aforesaid order c,f this C rurt in CRI).No.z.r)( o.'2013 and also having chosen not 1o lppear before th.: .. , r-(tspondcnt in the suit filed by the 5rr, r cso rndent herern, it : 'ro oi>e:n lor thc pctjtioner to :rllcg: ll- l1 1ilc 2nd responde r I cI:,: 611ng the suiL filed by the 6rh t_t,s1t,rl,:l rnt as plaintiff ui l e (. .!.No. I 1 2/2o 1 o, dt-og.03.20 19, r,r.ir hou L cir rbbing the same r,it.l- the suit filed by the petitionc: Lltt, L.t;it r uicle OS.No.1517'.tC 1 1, as being illegal, arbitrary and crntr:rn., Lo Lhe order of th s Co-'lrt ir-r CRp.No.4OO of 2013. 1 5. Sin<:c. t}.t lault lies with the pctitior-rer in n tr bring ng lo thc noticc ol 1..( )nd rcsponclent of l.he order ol this Clrt,rrt in CRP.No..l()() .rf .21i3 cven after lapse of 61,ears, hc perti ioner has to sufli r ic :. lter ou,n mistakes, and for thc sarrl re:rsor.l. this I I 8 I Courl is of the view that thc order of the 2"d respondent, dr.O8.03.2019 in O.S.No. l12/2010, cannot be said to be illegal

16. Thus, the Writ Petition is devoid of meri[ and ts accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

17. Consequently, misccllaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closcd //TRUE COPY// SD/- T, VIJAY KUMAR .DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I To, One CC to SRI. K. V, RAJASREE, Advocate [OP cl Two CCs to GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE ,High Court for the State of Telangana at HYd erabad [OUT] URGA PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. D Two CD Copies 1 2 J 4 \ BM HIGH COIJRT DATED:28:,10512025 VACATI()N COURT ORDER WP.No.988;2 of 2019 ' '. i I o i_) [ 2 ,itlt. 2{E (\( a) DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOU]'COSTS ?^ * t