The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim injunction restraining the Respondents from interfering in the possession of the suit lands, i.e., Ac.0-03 1/4 gts in Sy. No. 323 and Ac.1-12 314 gts in Sy. No. 322, situated on the eastern side of the railway track in Ananthagiripally Village, Wargal Mandal, Siddipet District, which is suit schedule property in O.S. No. 18 ot 2023 on the file of the Court Of The Additional Junior Civil Judge Cum Additional Judicial Magistrate Of First Class At Gajwel pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Sri. Srinivasa Rao Sirikonda Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. K Govind The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADIIAVI DEVI c.R.P.NO. l45O of2O25 ORDDR: This Civil Revision Petition has been lilcd against the ordcrs dated 11.04.2025 in C.IM.A.No.1l of 2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Siddipet District, refusing to grant interim injunction to the petitioner in I.A'No '2O of 2O23 in O.S.No.18 of 2023, dated O1.03.2024, on the hle of the ;ldciional Junior Civil .-Iudge-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gajwel.

2. Brici fa-cts leading to. the filing o[ the present Civil Ilevision Petition are that thc petil-i';ner herein is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No. 18 of 2023 t-rled for perpetual injeclion in rcspect of the suit schedulc property i.e., a[[ lanC acimeasuring Ac.O-03.25 guntas i:'r_Survey I'[o-323 (323lEElllLl2l and' Ac'!- i2.25 guntas in Survey l!o-322 (322lAl1ll' 322lAA/ l12' 322 i D l 1 / l and 322 l E l 2 l Ll, totaliy adn'reastrriirg f"c' 1 - 15'50 guntas, situated at Anantlragiripaltlr Viilage, Wargal tr'landal' Siciaipet District. The botrnciaries of the suit schcduie properry arc sho"vn as Nc:lh - P''-r.D rc's.cl (Tocprar-r to Cajr"'e!), -qou'ir - iarrd belongs to suiesh irr Survey r't't '322 ' Eas't - 12 fi:e t v;id': ) J ?/a 2 taD,J cRP-r{o. t4sc of 2025 road and West - yavapuram Shivaar. Along with the suit, the petitioner plaintiff has also filed I.A.No.20 of 2023 for ad-interim injunction against ttre respondents. The respondents opposed the ad-interim injunction hy hling a counter affidavit, denying the averments made by the petitioner in the I.A., stating that the suit schedule land in Survey No.323 is situated to Northern side quite abutting to pWD road leading from Gajwel to Toopran and land in Survey No.322 is situated towards Southern side to the land admeasuring Survey No.323 and the pelitioner plaintiff has no land in Survey No.323 after railway track towards Eastern side. It is further submitted that the petitioner/ plaintiff dishonestly l-rled a suit with an intention to grab the land in Survey No.323 and that the respondents No.3 and 4 are the owners and possessors of the tand in Survey No.323. It is also stated that the respondent/defendant No.3 had sold land admeasuring Ac.O-OT% guntas of land in Survey No.323/A to respondent/defendant No.2, through registered sale deed No.23 ol 2022, d,ated 2O.O1.2022 and. the respondent/defendant No.4 sold the Ac.O-OZya guntas of land to respondent/dgfendant No.2 through registered sale deed and therefore, the responden t/ defendant No.2 is the owner and possessor of 15 3 TXD'J CRP.No. ,15o ol 2025 guntas of land in Survey No.323 purchased through separate sale deeds from the original pattadars with the boundaries as East : the land of Guwa Pochaiah; lVest : the railway track; North : the road; and South: the land of trkkala Sathireddy i.e., petitioner/ plaintiff herein. It is fr.:riirer stated that the respondent/defendant No. 1 in turn, has purchased the said land through registcred sale deed clate<l 1544 of 2022, dated fi.A6.2A2'2 from the r espondent,/,Jefeirclant No.2 and that he has been put in possession of the vacant land by his vendor and he is in the peaceful possession arrd enioyment of the same ever since. It is also stated !-ha't the respcndent l{o. i has approacl:ed the 1'ahsilciar and Jcint Sllb- Registrar, Wargal, for conversion cf agricultutal lanC tc non- agriculttlral land asrd the said petition tras allcTved t!:rough Frocec<iings ilo -22O lQ 10725, datcC O1.12.2Cr22 and Lhat tne iancl u.'as converted to r:cn-a.gricultural lancl anci ttie i'esp.oildent/ defen<Ialt I'Ic.1 i:as p'aii required fcc lor con';eI sio:r of land arid obtained the per:r:ties:c:i for ccnslitrc'"icn cf RCC 4 TfiD,J CRP.No. ,15O of 2025 buildings and that the construction q,ork has already started and that the petitioner/plaintilf has filed the subject suit only to harass the respondent No. I.

3. The trial Court has dismissed ttre I.A.. by obscrving that the pctitioner has utterly failed to prove that there is a railway line on the West side of his land as per the claim and that there are no supporting documents to clairn the same, rvhereas thc respondents have proved before the Court that they are having railway track torvarcis Western side of th.eir land. The same rvas challenged by the petitioner/plaintifi in C.M.A.No.l I ot 2024 along wirh I.A.No.3OS of 2024 for ad_interin injunction.

4. Inirially, the First Appellate Court in I.A.No.305 ot 2024 has direc[ed both the parties to maintain starus_quo as on the date of filing of the petition. However, vide impugned order dated 1 7.O4.2O25, the CMA has been dismissed by obscrving that the petitioner has failed to prima-facie estabtish, through the documents hled by hirn, that there exists a railway track towards Western side of his land and that the trial Court refused to gran t relief of temporary injunction and that the Appellate Court does not find any error in the order of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/ plaintiff has {iled 5 TT4J cRP-tao. Uso ol fr25 this Civil Revision Petition under ArLicle 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. l,earned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the registered sale deed bearing No' 3894 of 2022,' urrder which the petitioner has purchased 21 guntas of land in Survey No.322lDl1, 3O guntas of land in Survey No.322lA and 16 guntas of land in Survey No'32218/5' Ac. I-1O guntas cf land in Survey No'323/EE, 35 guntas o[ iand in Survey No.322lAA,3 guntas of land in Survey No'322/El5 artd 2^guntas of land in Survey No'322, total lancl admeasuring Ac.3-37 guntas, all situated at Ananthagiripally Village and Gram Panchayat, Wargal Revenue ManCal, Iedak District' A'P'' which were bounded: North by PWD road (Tcopran to Gajwel road)' South by land of Suresh, East by a waY, and Wcst b-v YuvaPur Shivar. I{e sLrbmitted that thereaft€r a par:t,of , t}re lan<t of the petitior.er has becn acquired by the railways for laying a railway track' 6 7Uo; cRP.rlt . t{.sg of mis and in effect the raitway tract divided the land into two portionsm i.e., to the East and West side of the railway track. He stated that the petitioner has also been paid the conrpensadon for such acquisition. I{e has also drawn the attention of this Court to the sale deed No.25t of 201g, dated 2O.lO.2OlZ in betwcen the petitioner and the Tahsildar, Wargal, under which the total of i.27 Acres of land has been sold for.the purpose of the railway track. He submitted that the land in Survey No.S23 to the extent of 29 %guntas and Survey No.322 to the extent of 37 guntas was acquired and the petitioner was left with land in Survey Nos.323, 322 on both sides of the railway track. The petitioner has thereafter sold the land on tJ.e Westem side of railway track to one M.e.M.K.Aqueel, S/o.Mohd.Hlder Khan Ursi, vide registered sale deed No.322l of 2018, dated 2t.O3.2Olg and Eastern boundary of the same is shown as railway track, West side is yavapur Shivar, North side is PWD road (Toopran to Gajwel) and South is the rand of Suresh. It is submitted that thereafter, the balance of land left with the petitioner is only on the Eastern side of the railway track and therefore, the western boundary of the balance land of the petitioner is the railway track, and he has accordingly shown the same in the suit schedule property. He submitted 7 ,ItD,J CRP,r{,. U$O ol 2025 that both the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have failed to consider the same and have only observed that the petitioner has failed to produce any documenta4r evidence to show that there exists a railway tract towards Western side of the suit schedule property. The trial Court has referreC to Ex.P4, u'here he has shown the railway track towards East side' He submitted that Ex. P4 is the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of one Mr. M.Q.M.K.Aqueel and thercfore, the authorities have misread the document and have denieC the relief of irrterirn injunction to the petitioner.

6. I-earned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the abovc submissions, while the learncd ccunsel for the respondents ha-s supported the orders of rial Court and submitted that the respondents have shown the boundarics of their land, whereas, the petitioner has failed to prove his boundaries and particularly, the railway track on the Western sicie of his land.

7. Having regard to the rival , contcn5cns and the rnaterial on record, this Court finds that during the pender-rcy of the CMA, an interim directio:l to maill'.ain sfatug-quo was passed and this Court lras also passed an o;'der to maintain - a 1{D,J cRP./^b. tlso ol2O2S starus-quo pending adjudication of the Civil Revision petition. This Court finds that the documents are filed by the petitioner to demorlstrate that the petitioner,s land was divided into two portions by laying of the railrvay track after acquisition of part of land of the petitioncr for raiiway track and that cne portion has railway track on the Eastern sicle and other portion has riihvay track on Western side. The petitioner has sold portion of the land having railway track as the Eastern boundary and the balance of the tand lefr with the pctitioner would be the land with railway track as its Western boundary. This Court finds that both the trial Court as wcli as the First Appellate Court have failed Lo appreciate this factual aspect and have rejected the application of thc petitioner for ad_interim injunction.

8. In view thereof, the order in C.MA_No. I I of 2024, dated I I .O4.2O25 as well as the order in I.A.No.2O of 2023, dated 01.03.2024, are side aside and the trial Court is directed to reconsider the issue after considering the documentary evidence filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. T I such time, the interim order of stcusquo shall be maintained by all concerned.

9. This Civil Revision petition is accordingly disposed of. There shalt be no order as to costs. 9 1YD,,t caf,.r{o. 1150 ol2ar2s

10. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition' shall stand closed' sdr- N. sRrHARl D PUTY REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge' Siddipet 2. One CC to Sri. Srinivasa Rao Sirikonda Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. K Govind Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies MKN/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1410512025 ORDER CRP.No.1450 of 2025 c g

1.4 ? /7 t / :) ,] iffiilx 2 I JUL 2025 .\ -Or st,4TC '-ll,O DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION.