The High Court · 2025

Sri Bhulrya Venkanna ... Petitioner/ Respondent/ Petitioner/ Plaintiff AND Cheemala Pushpa, W/o. Nage swara Rao, Aged 50 yr:ars, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Madclulapalli Village, Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam District . Respondent/ Appellant/ Respondent/ Defendant ORDER

1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 2il7 of Constitution of India assailing the order passed in CMA No.l of 2021, dated 26.10.2022 by the Court of Agent to Governm':nt, Khammam.

2. Petitioner is the respondent and respondent is the appellant in CMA Itto.1 of 2021. \ \b \ 2lt2 BRMR,J cFP_3or22o22

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned Court of Agent to Government, Khammam is contrary to law, evidence on record and probabilities of the case. The learned Judge ought to have seen that the order of the Mobile Court in IA No.56 of 20ll in OS.No.S7 of 20ll is dated

27.O8.2O18, whereas the Appeal was filed in the year 2O2l beyond limitation. The learned Court of Agent to Government, Khammam ought to have seen that the pahanies clearly shows that the petitioner is in possession and the claim of the respondent herein is different as observed by the learned Mobile Court i.e., survey number is different between both the claims and prayed to set aside the order passed by the learned Agent to Government at Khammam.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Court of Agent to Government, Khammam has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and also considered the Land Transfer Revenue case (herein after called as LTR case) filed by the father of the respondent and set aside the order passed by the learned Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam and no interference is called for, prayed to dismiss the CRP.

5. Heard the counsel on record, perused the material I t 3lL2 BRMR,J cRP_30 12_2022

6. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order passed by the Court of Agent to Government, Khammam in CMA No.l of 2021, datr:d 26.10.2022 suffers from any perversit5r or illegality? ..f so, does it require interference of this Court?

7. Petitioner has filed suit in OS No.87 of 2O11 before the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent (Mobile Court) at Bhadrachalam against the respondent for perpetual injunction restraining her, her men, servants, relatives and all persons cle-iming through them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is wet land in Survey No185/3 to an extent of Acs.O3-CtO guntas situated at Maddulapatly Village of Kamepally Mandal in Khammam District with specific boundaries.

8. Respondent who is the defendant in the suit has filed her written sta.tement and contended that the alleged sale deed dated O2.O5.2O10 is not true, valid and binding which was created by Venkat Rt:ddy to overcome the regulation 1159, amended by l/I7O, who is not a tribe and Venkat Reddy is the man behind the litigation. An LTR case No.82ll75 is booked between Siddoboina Mallaiah zmd N.Chandraiah, father of N.Venkat Reddy, ejectment order \yas made on

20.10. L976 against which 4lL2 BRMR,J cRP_30L2-2022 N.Chandraiah filed CMA No.53177 before the Agent to Government, Khammam and the same was dismissed on

30.09.1983 and the land was handed over to the Tribal petitioner with the panchanama dated 27.O1.L997. g. The petitioner along with oS No.87 of 2o11 has also filed an application ufde IA.No.56 of 2Oll seeking ad-interim injunction order against the respondent. The respondent liled her counter which is in consonance with her written statement. The learned Mobile Court passed an order on O1.03.2013 granting injunction to the petitioner. The respondent aggrieved by the order in IA No.56 of 20tt in oS No.87 0f 2011, dated 01.03.2013 filed cRP No.4796 0f 2OI3 before the High Court. The High Court uide order dated 2l.ll.2Ol4 has remanded the matter to the Mobile Court for fresh disposal and if the parties cooperate, the Mobile Court is directed to dispose of OS No.87 of 2Oll itself within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, otherwise the Mobile Court is free to pass order in IA No.56 of 2O11 and it shall take note of the entire material, consider the same and record a finding while disposing of the IA or suit.

10. In pursuance of the orders of the High Court in CRP No.4796 of 2013, dated 2l.LL.2Ol4 the learned Mobile Court has heard the 5112 BRMR,J cRP_3012_2022 matter afresh and allowed IA No.56 of 2011 and granted ad-interim injunction order in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondent from interfering in his possession. tt is apt to refer the operative pcrrtion of the order in IA.No.S6 of 2o11 dated 2T.og.2otg which readsr as under: "The reports submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Yellandu before Judicial First class Magistrate court, yellandu stating that Tahasildar, Kamepatli furnished his report vide Rc.No.E|/ 1862/2012 dated 29-12-2012 stating that land Ac.l- o3 gunt,s in sy.No. r&slalu belongs to smt cheemala pushpa w/o. Nageswara Rao in sy.No.185/3 to an extent of Ac.02-33 guntas belongs to Bhukya Venkanna S/o.peekla. on careful examination of the documents filed by both the parties, inference is drawn that respondents survey number is different from the petitioner survey number. The petitioner survey number is 185/3 to an extent of Ac.3-oo it is supported by his Sada sale deed and Adangals and third party aflidavit Iiled by the petitioner taking into consideration it reveals that at the rlate of filing this suit the petitioner is in possession of the petition schedule property and. enjoying the same in those circumstances I inclined to grant Temporar5r Injunction orders in favoirr of the petitioner the respondent hereby directed that herself and her henchmen's not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner scheduled property until disposal of the main suit,,.

11. The respondent aggrieved by the order in IA.No.56 of 2olt dated 27.ot3.2o18 has preferred cMA before the court of Agent to 5lt2 BRMR,J cw_3012_2022 \ Government, Khammam uide CMA No.l of 2O2L which came to be allowed on 26.10.2022 and the order passed in tA.No.56 of 2O11 in OS.No.S7 of 2O11 dated 27.O8.2O18 is set aside. The observation of the Court of Agent to Government, Khammam in CMA.No.l of 2O2L reads as under: "v. As seen from the above order dt.27.O8.2018 of Special Assistant Agent and Sub Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, the lower court observed that ejectment order passed in LTR case No.38/2OOT IKMPL, Dt.11.02.2011 in Sy.No.185/3/Vu (Ac.5.35gts). Further observed that as per the report of Tahsildar, KamepaTli dt.29.L2.2OL2 the land in Sy.No. 185/3/Vu measuring AC.1.O2 gts belongs to Cheemala Pushpa and Sy.No.185/3 to an extent of Ac.2.33 Gts belongs to Bhukya Venkanna. Observed that the Sy.No. is different from the petitioner survey no. The petitioner Sy.No.185/3 measuring Ac.3.OO Gts is supported by Sada sale deed and adangals and third party affidavit came to conclusion that the petitioner Bhukya Venkanna was in possession of SSP granted interim injunction order. vi. The Special Assistant Agent and Sub Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam, has not gone into the depth of alleged purchase by the petitioner on 02.05.2010 from Nallabothu Venkata Reddy on a sada paper, and no form-L was issued by the Agent to Government on such purchase. The said purchase was not in accordance with provisions of Form-L. Further the lower court has not verified whether the vendor Nallabothu Venkata Reddy was having legal title in selling the land, but the petitioner simply states in his allidavit that his vendor Nallabothu Venkata Reddy was in possession of the land 7lt2 BRMR,J cRP_3012_2022 since 19t62. The lower court has not verifred whether such possessir>n of the vendor Nallabothu Venkata Reddy is in violation of LTR provisions or not. No documentary proof was filed befirre the lower court about the valid title of the vendor Nallabothu venkata Reddy. Even the pahani extracts filed by the petitioner is for the year 1gg4-g5, 19g6-97 to lggg-go,Lgg3-g4, LggT-g8, lggS-gg which shows that sy.No.lgs/3 measuring Ac.29o.21Gts. The pattedar is Jeenath Begum and the name of Nallabot,ru Venkata Reddy was shown as occup€ult Ac.3.o0 Gts. Further it was mentioned all these entries were with different ink changes. Likewise the pahani for 2o1o-lr,2ol2-13 reveals the pattedar is Jeenath Begum and the name of Bhukya Venkanna is recorded as occupant for Ac.3.OO gts. vii. I- was not estabrished that the vendor's father i.e. Nallabothu chandraiah has got more than Ac.3.00 gts of land, not in vi,rlation of LTR provisions before LTR ejectment order. viii. 'lhe lower court has not taken into criteria that the sub division numbers to t].e main survey no.1g5 is only notional and does not reflect the correct position on ground. ix. 'l'he lower court ought to have verified about the land for which ejectment order u'as issued in favour of the father of the respond'lnt (cheemala pushpa), simply came to conclusion basing ,rn the sada sale deed frled by the petition Bhukya Venkanrra while granting interim injunction. In view cf the above observations, this court felt that the orders passed by the special Assistant Agent and Sub Divisional Magistrzrte (Mobile court), Bhadrachalam, in IA.No.56 of 2011 in os.No.87 of 2oll, Dt.2z-o8.201g is suffering with defects and not finalized after reasonable consideration of the above facts. BRMR,J cRP_3012_2022 Hence the order issued by the sub Divisional Magistrate' Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam in IA.No.56 of 2OL1 in OS. No.87 of 2011 dated 27.O8.2O18 is hereby set aside".

12. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed copy of LTR case No.38/O7/KMPL dated t1.o2.2o11 and copy of the judgment in CMA.No.53l77 passed by the Court of Agent to Government, Khammam on 3O.O9.1983. The order passed by the Land Transfer Regulation Case No.38/07/KMPL by the Court of Agency Divisional Officer, Kothagudem reads as under: "The 1"t Respondent died, his daughter Smt'Cheemala Pushpa (sT) is attended the court and deposed that they are three sons and three daughters to her father and also deposed that the scheduled tand is the patta of her father Sri Siddeboina Mallaiah and her father is illiterate. Due to innocence, Sri Rasala Krishna has occupied the land and cultivating. she further deposed that after death of her father, they have asked to return the land, but Sri Rasala Krishna said that they have purchased the land long back and not entering them in the land and requested to restore land to them. On examination of the pahani extracts submitted by the Tahsitdar Kamepalli for the years 1965-66, t969-7O to l97l-72, 2OO3-O4, 2006-0T and 2OO9-10 for Sy.No.185/3/Vu of Maddutapalli village, the name of Sri siddeboina Pothaiah (sT) is recorded as pattadar for Ac.1O.OO for the year 1965-66 and the name of Sri Siddeboina Mallaiah (ST) l"t Respondent is recorded as pattadar for Ac.1O.OO for the years L969-7O to 1971-72,2OO3- OI 2006-07 & 2OO9-10. The names of Sri Rasala Krishna, -Jakkula Achaiah & Jakkula Ramaiah lnd, 3rd & 4th Respondents . 9lt2 BRMR,J cRP.3O122022 and rec,>rded as enjoyers for Ac.2.2O gt", 1.25 gts & 1.30 gts respectirrely for the years 2OO3-O4,2006-07 & 2009-10. Henc,: it is satisfied that the transaction took place between Tribal and Non-Tribal after the APSA LTR 1959 read with APSA LTR 19?'0 came into force. In view of the above, it is established and proved beyond doubt lhat the 2"a, 3.d & 4th Respondents contravened the section 3(1) of the APSA LTR 1959 read with APSA LTR 1970 and they ca:ne into possession of the land mentioned in the schedule. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub- section 2{a) of the section 3 of the APSA LTR 1959 read with APSA LTR 1970, hence it is ordered ejectment against ths !nd, $'d & 4th. Respondents or whoever is in the possession of the immov:rble property described in the schedule and to restore the possesr;ion of the land to the 1"t Respondent/Tribal pattadar or to his Iegal heirs. If the Tribal pattadar or his legal heirs are not available and not possible to restore the land to them, then the land to be resumed to the Government. I hereby direct the Tahsildar Kamepalli to restore the schedtLled land to the Tribal pattadar or to his legal heirs and if restorertion is not possible, then take the land into Government custody and assign to the landless poor Tribals either for agriculture purpose or for house sites purpose as per the rules by remov.ng any person found by the decree who may refuse to vacate the same. Distrir:t: Khammam Mandal: Kamepalli SCIIEDULE Vilkrge Sy.No. with SD No. Extent in Ac. Gts Classification Madctulapalli 18s/3/Vu

5.3s \ \ Lllt2 BRMR,J cRP_3012_2022

13.1. Nallabothu Chandraiah was ejected from the suit land on the ground that the respondent (Siddaboina Mallaiah) was declared as tenant under Section 38-E of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agriculture Holdings Act, 195O.

13.2. It is apt to mention here that Nallabothu Chandraiah, father of N.Venkat Reddy has filed CMA No.53 of 1977 before the Court of the Agent to Government, Khammam against Siddaboina Mallaiah who is the father of the respondent. In the order, it is stated that the lower court has failed to consider the sale transaction which took place on 16.O3.L962 between the father of the appellant and respondent. The appellant further contended that he is in possession of the suit schedule land since 1962 and that the lower court wrongly discarded the Land Revenue Receipts, an Agreement of Sale filed by him and it is further contended that Agreement of Sale, dated 16.03.1962 was on a plain paper thereby another Agreement of Sale is executed on stamp paper on I9.L2.L964 treating it as a sale deed. The appellant Nallabothu Chandraiah challenged the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector, (TW) Palvanch, dated 25.09.1976 in Case No.821. Appeal filed by Nallabothu Chandraiah came to be dismissed uide order dated 30.09.1983. .\ ) . Lt/12 BRMR,J cRP_3012_2022 14- The l,:arned court of the Special Assistant Agent and sub Divisional N{agistrate, Mobile court at Badrachalam order came to be set aside' in cMA No.l of 2o2r holding that the purchase made by the petitioner on o2.05 .2olo from Nallabothu venkat Reddy on a Sada paper is not in accordance with the provisions of Form I. The learnecl court of Agent to Government, Khammam further observed in. the cMA that the rower court has failed to veri$r whether Nailabothu Venkat Reddy is having legar titre in selling the land and al,so grr.,1rer observed that the lower court failed to verisr whether the possession of Naflabothu venkat Reddy is in violation of LTR provisions or not. The Court of Agent to Government, Khammam [n its order in cMA has referred to the documents rrled by the part.es in para No.3 and para No.l1 and rightry set aside the order p;rssed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile court, Bhadrachal.m in IA.No.56 of 2ort in oS.No.gz of 2o1r, dated 27.O8.2018

15. The learned court of Agent to Government, Khammam has answered t.he contentions raised by the parties in proper prospective and rightly passed a reasoned order by discussing the points raiseri by the counser thereon. This court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the orders passr:d by the learned Agent to Government, Khammam in { ( L2lL2 BRMR,J cRP_3012_2022 \.-...-...-.---.."..".....- I cMA No.1 of 2021, dated 26.Lo.2o22. There are no merits in the cRP and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

16. In .the result, civii Revision petition is dismissed without Interim orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/ s stands closed. SD/. S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER UJATHA KURAPATI Advocate IOPUC] loPUCl \ To,

1. 2. 3. 4. G The Court of the One CC to SRl. l One CC to Ms. S Two CD Copies E/PSL % HIGH COURT DATED:04112t2O25 ORDER CRP.No.3012 ot2022 (J llrmM * DISMISSING'I-HE CRP WITHOUT COSTS p 0