SRI E v. vs S. RAV KUtlt, rR counsel forthe

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the crr: rmstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the peiition, ine Hign court r ay oe preaseJio suspend the Judgment and decree dated 7-6-2013 riade in c{ No iztzooz on If-,ji"^_?l 1l199.gt lamiry court cum Addr District & s:;sions .luose it Kaflmnagar, pending disposal of the Appeal. Counsel for the Appeltant: SRI p. SREEDHAR REDDY, SPECt \L GOVERNMENT PLEADER REPRES :NTING FoR THE ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI K. RAGHUVEER REDDY APPEAL SUIT No 568 0F 2013 Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C. aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 07-06-2013 made in O.S. NO. 33 of 2007 on the file of the Judge, Family Court cum Additional District & Sessions Judge at Karimnagar. Between: Kota Niranjan Reddy, S/o Govinda Reddy, Occ - Agriculture, R/o Thogarrai Village of Sultanbad Mandal, Karimnagar Dist. AND ...APPELLANT/ plaintifl

1. Kota Ram Reddy (Died), Per LRs 2. Kota Laxma Reddy, S/o Kota Govinda Reddy, Occ - Agriculture, Rio Thogarrar Village of Sultanbad Mandat, Karimnagar DiSt.

3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by District Collector, Karimnagar Dist.

4. The Tahasildar, Tahsil Office, Sultanabad Mandal, Karimnagar Dist. 5. The Director of Mines & Geology, Vlll Floor Burugula Ramakrishna Rao Bhavan, Hyderabad .

6. The Asst Director of Mines & Geology, Ponnam Complex, Mankamathota, Karimnagar Dist.

7. K Bharath Kumar, S/o Suryanarayana, Occ - Business, R/o 11-10-119/6, Vijayapuri Colony, Kothapet Village, Hyderabad.

8. Kota Sai Kishore Granites, Situated at 130/2RT, Sanieeva Reddy Nagar, Rep by its Managing Partner K.S.Sai Kumar, S/o K.V Kriihna Reddyl

9. Kota Sumath, Wo Late Kota Govinda Reddy, Occ -Household, R/o Thogarrai Village of Sultanabad Mandal, Karimnagar Dist.

10. Narra Babu Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Occ - Business, R/o 11-10-119/6, Vijayapuri Colony, Kothapet Village, Hyd 'l 'l . Pinnamaneni Hari Babu, S/o Nageswara Rao, Occ - Business, R/o I 1-10- '1 19/6, Vijayapuri Colony, Kothapet Village, Hyd

12. Puli Anasurya @ Venkatnarasamma, W/o Venkat Reddy, Occ -household, R/o Mulkalapallky, Kothapet, V/o Hyd.

13. Danda Kamala @ Meenamma, w/o Prabhu Reddy, Occ - Household, R/o Mogullapally Mandal, Warangal Dist.

14.Jali Leela @ Narasamma, Wo Linga Reddy, Occ - Household, Rl/o H.No.24- 1594, Ashok Colony, Sumangali Function Halll, Hanmkonda, Warangal Dist. '15. Karra Raji Reddy, S/o Shankar Reddy, Occ - Govt. Servant, Ryo Jangamaplly (Korkal), V/o Veenavanka Mandal, Karimnagar Dist. '16 Mandala Sunitha, Wo Prabh-akar Reddy, Occ _ Househl C, R/o H.No..12-6_ 21202 Viveknagar Locatity of Xutatpaf Vl'ff VaeraOiO 17 Kqtgnguri_Vijayalakshmi, W/o Karunakar Reddy, Occ -Hc rsehold, R/o H.N.o.2-5-56(LtG-74, APHB Corony, Jimmiiunii vtirige r no Man'oji,- Karimnagar Dist.

18. Karra Kondala Reddv. S/o-Raji Reddy. Occ _ RTC Drive,. R/o Janagampally (Korat), V/o veenavanka uanilal, tiJiim"nriri iji.t "'"

19. Kana Devender Reddy. Q/9 Rgji Reddy, Occ _ Agricuttur: R/o Janagampaily (Korat), V/o Veenavanka Mandit, xa-ri,iinigJ, Di;i iT.sl'1'^?^o^rt:l,y_1 ry/g Raji Reddy, Occ - Househotd, Rlo I No 1-7_s35, 1"j:9_19r-_u__.l"]lyr rematneo exparte in O.S. No.33/2007) HIr'lleI.Rgqd, Hanmkonda, Waransa, I rist (R-2 and 8 --' 20 21 . Kota Sai Krishna Reddv r/o. Thogarrai (v), Sultanabad (l/ , Karimnaga(dist) (2f' .R_espondent is imilteaded d p;;'t#'il;;ibi"tt.o r_3-16 in ASMp- 1871115 ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. K. RAGHUVEER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI MOHD ARIFWALI counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 : sRr p. SREEDHAR I EDDY, spEcrAL GOVT. PLEADER REPREI; :NTING FORTHE ADV( CATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 : SRI E. V. V. S. RAV| KUtlt, rR counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 14to20: sRr L. PRABHAK rR REDDy The Court delivered the following Judgment: THE HOI{OURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT Nos.to6 OF 2014 & s6a OF 2O1g COMMON JUDGMENT: Since the ftis and partics involved in these appeal suits are same, these mattcrs were heard toge ther ancl are disposed of b-y way of this common order. ,2 Hcard Sri I(.R:rgiruvet r Redcl1,, iearne<l counsel for :rppellants i, AS.No.56g of 20 I.l anrJ for rcspon(lents AS.No. l0r.r of 2014, and Sri p.ljreedhar Rcclcl-1,, lcarncd Spe<:ial (iovernnrent [)leacler rcprest:nting lhe Office of lcarned Advocrrte f.)ent:l:rl, fclr al:pcllarrr in AS.No. 106 of 2014

3. 'fhr:sc ap,i-.,y:1i srrrt:;.r.i: rilt.d chzrllengitrg tlrc or<Ier dalecl 07.06.'2013 passed in O.[i.No..]3 of ),(.)O7 on the file of the FiLmily Cr>urt cum Adclitional t)ist.rict ;rncl Sessions,Judge, at Kl.rrimnagar. '1'he plainriff i;r the sai,.j suit is appeilant in A,S.No.568 of 2O13 anrj the clefr:ndanL Nos.3 to 6/State, in the szrid suit are appcilarlt,.i in i.:l,No. I O4 oi 20 1+. 2 SKS, ] A.5.No 1)+ r 2014 569of2[I]

4. For the sake of convenience, the partics rercln ar(l relcrrcd to as arrayt:d in O'S No-33 of 2OO7 A.S.No.5 6a oF 2013

5. The plaintiff/ appellant instituted O S'No i ' scckir-rg rleclaration of title, perpetual injunctio'r ancl separatc possession in respect of the st i propcrtics situatcrl in Sy No 506 admeasurinl ol' 2O()7 part it)ori, sc hc<lu lc Acs. 1 7.li I grr ntas and lotaling to in S1'.No.507 admeasuring Acs L l ( :; 'lLIIrtas' Acs.30.36 guntas, at Kadhambzrl'r 'r' Villagt:' Mandal, Karimnagar District, statin!1 that he is S ultirnabad the lyandson of late Kota Sadasiva Reddy' the or linal ou'ner and possessor of the suit schedule land' and aftcr 'llc dt:mise tll K<lta Sadasiva Reddy, the property was inhcrit.' Ljr;iritly i;r- his sons, i.c., inclu<ling the father of pl'l ntiff attd consequentlv by the plaintiff, along witlr cic{t:ndant Nos.I and 2, who are his siblings' The plaintiff corL ctrder<l that thc suit lands had always remained it-r the possi I sion of his parlitirrn fermily, as such, he sought for declaration of tirl into thrcc cqual sharcs, and consequential reliefs' " 3 s(s.J A.S No 106 of 2014,569 of20rj Nc.rs.7 ancl 8,

6. Plaintiff further alleged that defendant Nos.3 to 6, who are oflrcial respondents (appellants in A.S.No. 106 of 2014), [abricated the revenue rccords, inclucling the pahani patrika .from 197 l-72 onwards, and unlaw.fully rccorded the suit land as Government land. The plaintifl asserted that his grandfather had never relinquished his rights over the land and allegcd that, acting at the behest of defendant the revenue records were tampered with, zrncl that dcfcndant No.7 was granted a mining lease for 5 zrcres of the suit land ; defendant No.g had also applied for a similar lease, prompting their impleadment in the suit. That bclore the suit rvas filed, the plaintiff approached this Courr by filing W.P.No.2051O of 2006 when lease proceedings in favor ol defendant No.7 were undet-wa)/, and this Court, urde ordcr daLcd 24.07 .2OOT , directed that the issue of title musr be decided in a civil suit. Accordingly, the prescnt suit \\,.1s instituted. 7 . It was the case of defendant Nos.3 [o 6 that t he grandfather of plaintiff relinquished his rights ovcr the land in the year 197 1 through Rajinama (relinquishmcnt dcecl), u.hich lecl to thc r:hange in revenue rccords as per the Revcnne a 4 !K5.i A-5 No 1( ,12014, 569 of 2013 f)ii,isional Officer's (RDO) proceedings datecl 4 10 197 1. Hou,ever. ther failecl to produce the actual rel,r quishmcnt dct:d or anl olficial proceedings supporting thc r lirinr. 'lhar defendant No.6, the Assistant Director of Mincs, Iilc I a u,rittcn statemcnt adopted by defendant Nos.3 to 5, l llou,ed [x' defendant No. 7, the leaseholder, also adopting thc eimr:.

8. The trial Court, after examining the ple r linps :ltcl eviclen<'e, hclcl that the grandfather of plaintilf wir; lhe orvnt:r and possessor of the suit land, and based on ad r issions ir-r the written stultemerts of dclendant Nos.3 l) (, arrd depositions of DW 1 (Tahsildar) and DW2 (lessr: ), it u,zrs obsen,cd that thert: \^/as no valid relinquishmc.r I deed on recorcl, and tha t tht: mandatory provisions urrder I ulc I 6 of the A.P. (T.A.) Land Revenue Rules, 1951 hacl not becn cornplie d u,ith. The trial Court noted discrepanci.r such zrs [hc abse nce of any proce eding numbe r )r- di.rtc, non-production of the allcged RDO proceedings, :u r, absenct: of the suit lancl in tl-re list of Government leinds ircrrlatcrl through Ex.A-50. 1'herefore, the trial Court cor-rr:.r cled thar relinquishmenr \\'as not proved and the burden of r':,r tblishinr ttrc titlc of plaintiff u,as cluly discharged. 5 sKs.l A.S No.106 of 2014, 569 of 2013 I . With regard to the limitation aspect, the trial Court observed that the suit was not barred by limitation as the changes in rc.,,enue records occurred only in thc year 2006-2007 aftcr which the plaintiff imn-rediately sought judicial remedy through a writ petition and subsequcntly liled the civil suit. On the aspect of injunction, the trial Court dcclined relief, observing that defendant No.7 was alreadv carrying out rnining operations on a portion admeasuring Ac-5.0O of thc suit land. Ultimately, thc suir was partly decrced on 07.06.2013, with a declaration that late Kota Sadasiva Reddv was the owner of the suit land., and his legal heirs, i.e., the plaintiff, Dt, D2, and Dl2 to D2O (the lattcr bcing female hcirs) were held entitled to one equal share each in the suit land. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintifl- liled this appeal suit challenging the deniai of injunction and rhe allotmcnt of shares to D 12 to D20. A.S.No.706 OF 2014 1 0. Thc brief facts of this case are lhat being aggrieved b.y the judgrnent dated 07.06.2013 passed in O.S.No.33 of 2OO7 thc State / ciefe ndant Nos.3 to 6, preferred this appcal, 6 5K5,J A S No I rt I 2014 569 of 2011 whereas, thc delendant No.7 hled A.S.No.649 c,f tO l ll rvhich rvlrs dismissr:d for non prosecution by this Cortrt. I re State, in its appcal, contended that the trial Court nt l erred in granting declaratorv relief without proper apprecr: tron of orztl and documcntary evidcnce. It was contended thal 1te suit w,as bad for non-..loinder ol a necessary party, as the tr laintiff had arrzryed thc Governme nt of Andhra Pradesh zrs z clc'lcndant instead of the Statc of Andhra Praclesh, as reclL ircd under Sr:ction 79 CPC. ltcliance rvas plerced on the judgment rcndered bv the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the c I ;r: of Chief Conservator of Forests v. Collector and Others 'ontendi;'rg that the suit was fatally defectivc due [,) inrproper. impleadment ol thc party. Furthcr, that thL. suit *,irs misconceived inasntuch as it combincd multiple I rcl <iistinct relicfs against both private parties and the Stat . therebv. rendering the suil not legally maintainable in its plt scnL forrn. 1 i . On the aspect of limitation, the specific stan I ()f State is thal the plaintilf h:rd claimed the cause of acrrc n to havc ariscn in 2007, lollowing a writ ordcr dated 24.O7..1, )O7. and a subsequent refusal 1:1, officials on 31.1O.20O7. I{o,, ever. frorn {2003) 3 scc 472 =_ 7 A S.No.106.f ,014, 5G9.f ;5:i the admissions made in the cross_examination of pW_ 1 , it was evident that the plaintiff and his siblings had knovrledge of the adversc claim ovcr the suit land as carly as the year 200O, u'hen they applied for mutatiop of records following the death of tl-rcir granclfather, and that thc said facts were admitted by the plaintiff himself, and the same would clearly show that the claim r.r,as barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitatioti Act, as thc suit was ins[ituted well bcyond the permissible period of three years from the date of knowledge of the adverse claim.

12. That apart, the State reliccl on the Faisal patti of 197 1-197,2, u,hiclt rccordecl the rclinquishment oI. rights over the suit larnd by the grandfather of plaintiff, and that the said documenL, ivhich remained uncl_rallcngecl until the fijing of the suit, u,as ovcr 30 years old and therefore a presumption of genuineness uncler Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, was enjoyed. That, the subsequent entries in the revenue records consistently recorded the land as Govcrnment property, and despite the same, no challenge was raised by any member of thc plaintiffs family, including the [athcr and grandtather, of plaintiff, during their lifetimc, and that the said long pcriod of r= 8 sK,t,l A S No 1[]:, )')14. !l-)9 of 20I-1 inacLion and acceptance of t.he revenue enti ( s fr-trther slll)ported the State's contcntion that thc titlc r rs i'alidlr vestc<l it,ith the Gor.ernment.

13. The State also pointed out that the ancestors r l- plriintill', u'hilc filing their land ceiling declarations untler t l relevan I Lanrl Reforms Act, did not disclose the suit lernrl. ,.' hich thci' rvcre bound to include if they had any claim over rr :rnC thal thc s.rid omissron stror-rgly indiczrted that th(' srt I ;r:irtclttL: prol)erly was never treated as part of the fa n r \' ('s1a]to. F-trrther, thaL th<: plaintiff had nevcr been in poss(:: ()n i)f tll(l pro[)ert] since the date of the allcged reiinclr-rish; r('n!. iln(l thercforr:, the Court fee paid on lhe basis of 1)oss .siorr rrars grosslv inzrdcqu:rte ancl contrarv to thc Courl lrer::. Lrtci Sttil:; Vallration Act. Furthermore, that under Scctior : cf lhc Andhra- Przrdesh Record of Rights Act, 197 1, tlte r:r r cs ;n the' record of rights are ;tresumed to be trlre until the ,nlr rr-\ is. provccl. ar-rd in the present case, the genuineness ol l.ie lraisal Patti and thc sullsequent revenlle enlries werc no1 . iallengcd or rcbutted b1' the plaintiff, as such, thc prcslrr ipri,)n in favour of the Statc's title u,ould stand ,.] -ebutLe(l. Aclditionalll,, that there rvere glaring inconsistenc r s in t lrr 9 5KS,J A S.No.106 ot 2014, 569 of 2013 evidence of PW-1 with respect to partition and possession o[ the suit Property as he admitted that lhe ancestral properties u,ere partitioneci among the siblings afrcr their father's death and thal the suit land u'as in the possession of their grandfather at that lime, thereby, negating the contention that the plaintiff had any surviving right over the suit schedule propertY.

14. The Statc emphasized that no other legal hcir of the grandfather of plaintiff had ever raised any claim over the propert-v, and that the suit filcd b'y plair-rtitf would clearly appear to be an aftertl-rought as the same is hled nearly 35 years after the alleged relinquishmcnt The State further c<>ntcnded thal the trial Court failed to consider it.s oral and documentary evidence, including erhibits proving the title and posscssion of the Statc, and that thc trial Court also did not rccord any spccific frnding on the issue of limitation or thc authenticity and legal effect of the Faisal Patti Aggrieved thereby, the State hled this appeat challenging the judgmctrt dated' 07.06-2013 passed in O S'No'33 of 2OO7 ' 10 s(;.1 A 5 llo I ll o 2C14. 569 of 201-l \

15. I lnving regard to the rival submissions 11: 11, and on gottlg throrrgh thc material placed on rcc-orrl. lltt: ltotnls clclermirrcd htr consideration by this Court are. Whcther the plaintiff in the trial Cr,r l r is cntitled for declaration of titlc inlunction? II Whcther tl-re originai owner of the pro1r, r t-y rr:linquished the suit land in favour,r lte (iovcrnmcnt? III Whcther the jucigment of the tri:il ( I I rrt dated 07.06.2013 passed in O.S.No..}} of 2007 necds interference ci this Courl .r 'lo s'hat cxl-ent? IV POINT Nos.I to IV :

16. In rhc appeal filed by the State, it is contendt,. ihat the trial Cotirt hzrcl not discussed about the Faisal patLi ( ) lht: ).car I97 1-)972, rvhcrcin, the suit property is shor,r.n as \ctrtcltai and that tl-ror-tgh the name of original ou,ner tvas s tou.n in Khirsarapahani ol' 1()54- 1955 and that subscqr r ntl1 he I 11 5KS,] A.S No 105 of 2014, 559 of 2013 relinquished the same in favour of the (iovernment. That being so, it is imperative to note that u,hen the Government is r:laiming that the properry is relinquished in its favour, thc Ciovenrment has to prove that that the mandatory provisions under Rule 16 of thc A.P. (T.A.) Land Revenue Rules, 1951 arc complied with. As seen from the record, thc contenLion of thc Llor.ernmcnt is that Kota Saclasiva Reddy resigned and rclinquisl'red from [he said land uide RDO Lr.No.A / 489'2 I 7 | clirted 14.10.197 1, which was mcntionc<l in the laisarl paLti in the yeerr 1972-73. 17 . Furthcr, it is pertinent to note that Rule 16 provides as to rclir-rquishment of the land -'a rcgistcred holder may rclinqtrish his land by submitting an unconditional razinama in u,riting to the Tahsild:rr or Naib Tahsildar before the end of April in any year, such razinama nee.d not be stamped but shall be in Form 'C' and the deciaration there in shall be iittested by two respectable r.t,itncsses ; the Patwari shall, if rcquested to do so by the registered holder, write thc razinama himsel[ '"vithout charging an)r fees for the same. If thc razinama is prepared by the Patu'ari, he sha1l affix his signatrrre bcneath the rvords 'arritten on the lower left hand 12 s(s.l A s \, 0 .f :0 4, i59 Df 2011 corller oi such razin.ima. The Tahsildar or- Nail, i rltsjldar, :rs thc t:asc rlr.,' [)r', n ho rcceivt s suclt razinam.r :.rr il (]e rli[!- i,] Itis ou'n hand irccording to the certific:a[e prescr-t c<l in [.orm 'Cl';hc shirll excrcisc duc care i6 asccrtairring rlr identitv ol' the person u'ho hzrs signed the same, notwiths. ncling Lhat such notice lras becn cluly endorsed as herein b<'i r r: rcquirt'd. The rclinqrtishmcnl shall have cffect lrom tht' r rse oI tl-it' clrrren I ve:l r.

18. Rule 17 plovidcs that, after the razinama c I applicant tlrirr his razin:rnra h:rs bcen sancLioned and shall Llso inlorm tl-rc village offic'c'r s ol' the same. The villagc offlclr : ;ltail rnal<t. zrn entrv rcgarrling the relinquishment in the vill 1 I( regisL( r. Rlrle l8 1:rovirlcs th:rt, a registered holder n i r qcl his rzrzlnalrl:r ccrtillt'd bv irppear-ing belbre any rcvcllLr: of[i,:er n,rt lorver in rank th:rr-r a Naib Tahsildar. Rule 24 pr<t'.r lcs that, zr lis( of all larrtis rclinquishcd in the montlt r 1 Ap.ril frrr- iniirrmation ol irersons who may apply for tl-r grant of relir-rquishecl l:rn<ts. Thc list shall be kept affixed to t re Cthavidr till thc l5 ol' Mzrv u'hcn a copy thereof shall be _s nt l() the Tahsildar u'ith ir certificate of five respectable pers )r1s to thc effr:ct th:ri the list rvas kcpt afhxed to the Char i I Tlrus, a 13 5KS,] A S.No 106 of 2014, 569 of 2O1i clear procedure is laid down under Rules 16, 17, lg and 24 as to the relinquishment

19. To prove the relinquishment, the State has Lo file nccessarv documents to show that Kotha Sadashiva Reddy relinquished the lands in the month of April and show that thc proccdure as laid down, was follou.ed by the Tahsildar, arrd rlrc N:rib 'I'al-rsildar, whereas, rhe Stare relied on ccrtifiecl copres of pahanis for thc years 1971 1972 to 2OO3_2OO4 rvlrich rterc marked as trxs.Bl to ,tJ26 before the Lrral Courr. Tllc St:rle also relicd on ccrtified copy ctf Seturar for Lhe ycar 2007 and lease of Government land, which were marked as Exs.B28 and A.29 and contended that these documents would short rhrit lands arc shown as banchai. 2O. lJc that as it may, when there is a spe cific procedure colrtcmplated in the relevant Rules, as discusscd ztbove, the s.inre ilrc' required to be followed by the Government. [n the [:rt:ts o[ the cases on hand, r.l.hen the State is contending thal latc iiolzi Sadashiva Reddy relinquished lands rn favour of Govg1rrrn"rr,, it is bound to file necessar-y documents to prove thrir contention vyith regard to relinquishment. 74 A: No 1r'r I r\1A t'9 'i Sr)'l 2'1" 2l . Though it rs conte nded that when the sr.rit i'; 1 led b'v the plainlifl tirr dt'clar:rtkrrr ol Litlc, thc burden lics on c plaintilf t() provc iris cztsc itnd that. hc cannot deperlrl tlpotl the \\rcaklless (lf clefcncl.rr)t. irr lhe iacts of the cases ()ll lland, lhe Statc has adnriited tl-rat late Kota Sadhasiva Reddr ias owner of the sLll)ject propcrt)', zrnd that being so, the ontl: its otl Lllc irs it is Slate to pror''c tht'lr contclltion of relirlquisl-rm l clairning that t}.rt're 'uva s a Razinama b}' latc I(o1;r ladhersiva Recld-r,- I{orvcvcr, e xc'e pt tiling the Fais:rl Pzrtti r 'l tht: r"ear 1g7 1-1g72, K hzrszrra irrr i'rzr r-r i of 19.54- I955 , no oth'" locumerlt is liled [o shrlu' t)Lat re\/enllc authorilies l'r I rr'r'erl thc procedurc contelnplilted ttnder Rules 16, 17, 18 rl-l I 2-1, anrl thal late Kota SaCI)asiva Reclcly made an apDli itt'ion for relilrquisltrne rt t irt tltt irr)lllh oi April 'lhereftrt:, 1ll; Cottrt is of the firrn vicq' tha( therr: is no illegality in the llnc ir-rg ol'th'-: trial Cotrrt rr.'iIh rttg:tltI to r-elinclttish ment ol'pro[)( r v bl lat'' Kottr Sacihasivzr Ilcclril , irt javrtur of the Governmer.l.

22. It rs ll-rc furtht'r contention of S l-ate that the li Lisai [)al-ti record discussed by thc trial Court pcrtains l(, the year 1971-197 2 i.c., oldcr Lhan morc than 30 years and hat being so, the Court has t() prosecute its gcnuillilr as thr' 15 SKS-J A.S.No.106 of 2014_ 55S of 2o1l prcsumption of it being genuine likely amounts to error, but tl-re trial C<>urt has not discussed the same and has not given zrn-r, finding in the said regard. No doubt in the Faisal patti of' thc year- l97l 1972 the subject lancl is shown as banchai. Thc prcsumption oI genuineness under Section 90 of Evidencc Act is mav presumption, as such, the same can be rebutted by thc other party. In Lhe Iacts of the cases on hand, though the sub-jc<:t larrd is mcntioned as banchai, the basis for making Lhc lancl lts bantchai is that late Kota Sadhasiva Reddy rclinquisht:cl the land in favour of Government and even zrssunring tlr:rt bt:ir-rg so, the genuinity of the same has to bc proved bv the Statc, but no document is filed before the trial Court in this contcxt or placed belore this Court to show that rclintlL.tishrrcnt proccdure was followed by thc revenuc iruihorities. 'lhercfore, this Clourt opines that there is no force iu thi: saicl contcntion and there are no irregularitics cornmittcd Ix, the trial Court in this regard.

23. With regarcl to the contention raised by the State in rclat ion to iimitzrtion, this court observes that the plaintiff contends that he only discovered the alleged lease in favor of D 7 :rnd D lO b-v the Revenue and Mining Authorit.ies in the 16 sK:.i q.j No :a', )r 1014. :'69 of 2011 year 2006, ancl promptly appro2rched thr-' Court. ( ivcrr thts, tlrc Court frncls tlrzLt thc suii is t'i1.-d rvitlrj.n Lhrt't ' i1l \ lrorn thc datc ol discoven' of the lcas(', and thus, i:; ''rtllrrl lhe limitation periorl. 'I'herefore, thc trial Court rightil ]iscussed this issuc

24. In addition, it is the specific contetrtion o[ p I irrtilf that only to tlle extent of 5 ac,'t's ol lirtrd, D7 is ieasr: il 'ldt r, :rncl with regard to remaining lancl, hc is entitlt tl for injL r ctiorl and that the saicl lcase is orrlv up to Novcmbcr tnotrrlL as such, ovcr thc larnd to :ln exleltt of 5 acrcs, thc Court t i t crrtlsider granting liberty to D7 for carryirrg mining till Nor: rbcr anri lor remaining cxtcnt injunction cttn be 5;r;rntccl.'l'trr ' being so, this Court arrlves ztt c<rttc[Lsion lllill, as t Itere is nr locuntent to prove tht: rclin<ltrishmcnt in ilvortr ol'State. th,r I laintilf irl ttre trial Court is clcclarcd as ow'ner ol th<: propertl il ld otlly to the cxter-rt of 5 acres of land, thc 1;laintifl- is not ir r J tss,'ssiort of property, as such., thc rcmaining lancl js entitlccl i r gr:rnt o[ injunction.

25. In vier,'t, of t he above disclrssion, the contcrr: rn ,rf tht-' zrppellant in A.S. No.568 of 2013 is th€rl t) r r-tgh Lhc l1 5K5'l A.S No.106 of 2014, 569 of 2013 Government claims to be in possession of the suit land, the tlial Court crred in refusing injunction over the entire extent. It is asscrtcd that only an extent of Ac.S.OO is under the mining lcaschold ol' defendant No.7 and that the remaining extent is in the possession of the appellant, thereby entitling hin-r to thc rclief ol- perpetual injunction.

26. As held hcrcinabove, the appellant in A.S.No.568 of 2Oi3 is the orvncr of the suit schedule properfy, and even according to lhe Government, no valid relinquishmert deed or anv documcnt L'vi(lcrlcing compliance with the mandatory procedurc uncler the A.P. (T.A.) Land Revenue Rules, 1951 has been prorlucecl. Tlrcrelore , tl-rcre is no rllegality in the findings oi ihc trial Court rlcclaring lhc plaintiff as the owner of the slrit lancl. [.-urther, the sLlit n'as also filcd seeking perpetual injunctit.rrr. Sincc <tnlv an cxtetlL of Ac.5.O0 is uncler the ltosscssion of delcnrl:rnt No.7 as a mining lessee, the appeilant in A.S.No.56B ol 2O l3 is er-rtitled to injunction with rcspect to tlte rcmzrining cxtcnt of Ac. 12.31 guntas out of the total Ac.17.31 gunLas in Sy.No.5O6 With regard to the area in possession r-r[ delcnclant No.7, it is open to the appellant to I t i. ! r.,i., rt SK5'l I C14, 569 of 20l l take appropriate ste ps in accordancc u'itll iarv' irr i Cu' of Lll r: tindings rccorcled heretn it' pari'

27. At:cordingly, A'S No'568 ol 20 13 is rrlior' ' granting the relicf of injunction to thc appclkirlt l' ) the extellt of tand excluding Ac'5 OO under lcasclrolcl oi cief i lrrnt- No 1/ 'j'ltcte A.S.No.1O6 ol 20l4 filerl bv the State is clismi"; t[ shall bc rto tlrder.rs to costs' Miscellaneous applications, if trtrt pcndirrr ' shell alstl stand closed I To, //TRUE COPY// SD/.(.SRINIVASA RAO OINT REGISTRAR \//1 I ECTION OFFICER --'- - Kanmnagar. (with records )

1. The Judge. Family Court cum Additional Djstrict & Sess c r ; Judge at ' I5:fr:;j" rHE ADVocATE GENERAL, Hish court ror r e state or 3. One CC to SRt. K RAGHUVEER REDDy Advocate [OpU(] 4. One CC to SRt MOHD AR|FWAL| Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to SRt. E VTKRAM REDDY Advocate IOPUC] 6. One CC to SRI L. PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocare (OpU() 7 One CC to SRI E.V.V S. RAV| KUMAR, Advocate (opUC) 8. Two CD Copies kul/PSL (+-- HIGH COURT DATED:25111t2025 -I COMMONJUDGMENT AS.No.106 ot 2O't4 & 568 OF 2013 o o ( 2 t ,tA ) t, + -..rr_r t-l A.S. NO. 568 OF 2013 IS ALLOWED IN PART AND DISMISSING THE A.S. NO. 106 OF 2014 WITHOUT COSTS (r \r \1 \2.- ))- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA APPEAL SUIT Nos. 106 OF 2014 a nd 568 OF 2013 A.S. No. 106 of 2014 Between:

1. Government of Andhra pradesh, Rep. by District Collector, Karrmnagar. 2. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Sultanabad Mandal, Karimnagar District. 3. The Director of Mines & Geology, Vlll Floor, BRK Bhavan, Hyderabad. 4. The Asst. Director of Mines & Georogy. ponnam comprex, Mankammathota, ...Appelururs 1 oeidnainti s i;d i*' Kanmnasar. AND 1 5p!1llt..niqn Reddy, S/o Kota Govrnda Reddy, Occ: Agricurture, R/o thogarrai vittage of Suttanabad Mandat. Karininagar dis-trict H:Oril?f"", per his LR. the defendant No.9, occ: Agricutture, R/o 2 $pl._l_?I [,"-d_dy19Ld), rnogarrat vt age of Sultananabad Mandal, Karimnagar district. - 3 Kota Laxma Reddy, s/o Kota Govinda Reddy, occ: Aoricurture. R/o Thooarrai v tage ot Suttananabad mandal, Karimnagar District. - . Respondents 2i 3 ( Defendants 1&2) 4. K,Bharath l<umar, _S/o Suryanarayana, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.1 1-1O_110t6 Vijayapur Colony, Kothapdt vittagb of Hyderabad.

5. M/s Sai Kishore Granites, situated at 130/2RT, Sanjeeva Reddv Naoar. Reo. -56'k.tkil;j h';#; ''"" by its managing partner K.V Sai xumar Reooy. 6 Kgta Sumathi, W/o Late Kota Govinda Reddy, Occ: House hold, R/o vUaypufl L;otony Kothapet village of Hyderabad Thogarrai village of Suithanabad Mandal of Karimnaqar District (R6 (D9) added as per order dated 25.08 2009 made in I n.Ndte4ti0O(i)' ' ' 7 llgll1e.l, Fao,.S/o Suryanarayana, Occ Business, R/o H.No.11_10_119/6, 8 Pinnamaneni Hari Babu, S/o Nageshwara Rao Occ Business, H.No..1.l_10_ 1 19i6, Vijaypuri Colony, Kothapet viilage of Hyderabad (R_7 and 8 (D_.10 and r r ) are addeo as per order daled 29.11.2011 Made in l.A. No.436/20 j 1) 9. Puli [email protected], W/o Venkat Reddy, Occ: House hold, Ryo Murcatapa y Kothapeta, Hyderabad. '10. Danda Kamala Meenamma, W/o Prabhu Reddy, occ Hc tse hold, R/o pidishita Mogutapalty Mandat, Warangii OistnCi. 11 Jari Leera @ Narasamma, wo Linga Reddy, occ: Housr: rord, R/o H.No.2_4_ '1594, Ashoka Colony, Sumangati Functionialf, flanmafr, n;; Vi;r;;;;i- -- DistricT

12.Katra Raji Reddy, S/o. Shankar Reddy, Occ Retired Govr. jervant, R/o Jangampaily (Korkal) Veenavanka M6ndat, KJrimnagar Il strici , 13 Mandala Sunitha, Wo.prabhakar Reddy, Occ House hol J Rio H.no. 12-g- 2t202 ywetmagar locatity Kukatpaily, Hibe;b"d 14 Katangyli Vljayalakshmi, Wo Karunakar Reddy, Occ Ho.r e hold, R/o H No 2_ ApHB Cotony .lammikunta rilr"s6'a-nd-tvlaii ,'i iji'xriiriildl .- B,l,ur|!f,o-ro

15. Karra Kondat Reddv 9l.o ngji Reddy, Occ RTC Driver, R ( Jangampaily ( Ko rk a I ), Ve e n a va n k a [,t a no ii x- riiln is; ii s in ci

16. Karra Devender Reddy S/o Raji Reddy, Occ Agriculture F ro Jangampally, Veenavanka Mandal (arimnasar oLjnli lT.Pingili Soujanya, Wo Raji Reddy, Occ House hold, Rio H I o.1-7-935 Advocates-coiony Huntei Road i"iJriiv'"t-[-"niriionoa, ! /aranqar. (R-9 ro 17 (D-12 to 20) aie aooeo ai peioioe-i,uri"j e.e.iorz Mzrr e in - tA No.530120i2) Appeal Under Sectlo1 $ -ot_ .e_.C, aggrieved by tt e Judgment and Decree dated 07-06-2013 made in o.s. No. ss-;i ioo'z onin,- iir" oiir,i-ii,ut" Family Court cum Additional District a Sessions.fuUle at K.rt mnagar. ...neSpOflOEnTS/ R€;pondents C This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusir; the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower bourt i no t"" ,"t"ri"i papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of stt p sREEDHAR REDDY, SPECIAL GOVERNITENi PL.AOEN REPRI: JENTING FOR THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, for the Appettants and SRt K RAGHUVEER REDDy. Advocate ror Responderiii. APPEAL S U lT NO: 568 oF 2013 Between: Kota Niranran Reddv. s/o Govinda.Reddy, occ - Agricurture, R/o --r ogarrai virage of Sultanbad Mandal. Karrmnagar Dist. ' 'lYr rvv'rv AND ...APPt LLANT/ ptaintiff

2. Kota Ram Reddy (Died), per LRs Kota Laxma Reddv. S/o Kota G-ovinda Reddy, Occ - Aqricullr .e, rhos a rra i vilase 6f su tta n oao-M a n Jit, k;;#;i;.t3i'' R/o

3. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by District Collector, Karimnagar Dist.

4. The Tahasildar, Tahsil Office, Sultanabad Mandal, Karimnagar Dist. 5. The Director of Mines & Geology, Vlll Floor Burugula Ramakrishna Rao Bhavan, Hyderabad .

6. The Asst Director of Mines & Geology, Ponnam Complex, Mankamathota, Karimnagar Dist.

7. K Bharath Kumar, S/o Suryanarayana, Occ - Business, RJo 1'1-'10-119/6, Vijayapuri Colony, Kothapet Village, Hyderabad, 8 Kota Sai Kishore Granites, Situated at 130i2RT, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Rep by its Managing Partner K.S.Sai Kumar, S/o K.V. Krishna Reddy.

9. Kota Sumath, Wo Late Kota Govinda Reddy, Occ -Household, R/o Thogarrai Village of Sultanabad Mandal, Karimnagar Dist.

10. Narra Babu Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Occ - Business, R/o 11-10-119/6, Vijayapuri Colony, Kothapet Village, Hyd. 1 1 . Pinnamaneni Hari Babu, S/o Nageswara Rao, Occ - Business, R/o 1 1-10- '1 '1916, Vijayapuri Colony, Kothapet Village, Hyd.

12. Puli Anasurya @ Venkatnarasamma, Wo Venkat Reddy, Occ -household, R/o Mulkalapallky, Kothapet, V/o Hyd. 13-Danda Kamala @ Meenamma, o Prabhu Reddy, Occ - Household, R/o Mogullapally Mandal, Warangal Dist.

14.Jali Leela @ Narasamma, Wo Linga Reddy, Occ - Household, R/o H.No.2-4- 1594, Ashok Colony, Sumangali Function Halll, Hanmkonda, Warangal Dist.

15. Karra Raji Reddy, S/o Shankar Reddy, Occ - Govt. Servant, R/o Jangamaplly (Korkal), V/o Veenavanka Mandal, Karimnagar Dist. l6.Mandala Sunitha, Wo Prabhakar Reddy, Occ - Household, R/o H.No.12-6- 21202, Viveknagar Locality of Kukatpaly, Hyderabad.

17. Katanguri Viiayalakshmi, W/o Karunakar Reddy, Occ -Household, R/o H. No.2-5-56(LlG-74, APHB Colony, Jammikunta Village and Mandal, Karimnagar Dist.

18. Karra Kondala Reddy, S/o Raji Reddy, Occ - RTC Driver, R/o Janagampally (Koral), V/o Veenavanka Mandal, Karimnagar Dist.

19. Karra Devender Reddy, S/o Raji Reddy, Occ - Agriculture, R/o Janagampally (Koral), V/o Veenavanka Mandal, Karimnagar Dist.

20. Pingilli Soujanya, W/o Raji Reddy, Occ - Household, R/o H.No 1-7-935, Advbcates Coiony, Hunter Road, Hanmkonda, Warangal Dist. (R-2 and 8 remained exparte in O.S. No.33/2007) 2'1. Kota Sai Krishna Reddy, r/o. Thogarrai (v), Sultanabad (M), Karimnaga(dist) (21"t Respondent is impleaded as per the Hon'ble C.O.dt 9-3-16 in ASMP- 1871t15. ...RESPONDENTS i { , Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C. aggrieved by th: Judgment and Decree dated 07 -06-2013 made in O.S. NO. 33 ot 2OOt on the fi e of i-he Judge, Family Court cum Additional District & Sessions Judge at Karit tnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusin3 the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court :rr d the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of S,r K. Raghuveer Reddy , Advocate for the Appellants and Sri tr/ohd Arifwa i. Advoiate for Respondent No. 2 and Sri P. Sreedhar Reddy, Spl. G.p r :presenting for The Advocate General for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 and S;r E.V V.S. Ravi Kumar, and Sri L Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate for rr: ;pondent Nos. 14 1o20. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1 2 That the A.S.No. 568 of 2013 be and hereby is, lllowed in part, granting the relief of injunction to the appellant l:r the enent of land excluding Ac.5.00 under leasehold of defer Cant No. 7 and A.S.No. 106 ot 2014 be and hereby is dismissec and ; That there shall be no order as to costs in these appe; s. //TRUE COPY// SD/-K { RINIVASA RAO JOI !T REGISTRAR ST:I ;TION OFFICER To

1. T_he. Judge, Family Court cum Additional District & Sess,i rns Judge at Karimnagar. 2. Two C.D.Copies (fr- Kul/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:25111t2025 COMMON DECREE AS.No.106 ot 2014 & 568 OF 2013 1!: NO.s68 OF 2013 tS ALLOWED tN pARr AND DtsMtsstNc THE A.S. NO. 106 0F 2014 WITHOUT COSTS I lL- t \1 z\