( 1 ) THE Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1-11-2000, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition being w. P. No. 10048 of 2000, filed by writ petitioners-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein was disposed of in the manner following:"in the impugned order, the first respondent himself directed the second respondent to take action in accordance with Section 32 of the Act. The only objection of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the various observations made by the first respondent would not leave anything to be decided by the second respondent in the enquiry. Therefore, as directed by the first respondent, the matter shall stand remitted to the second respondent who shall decide the application of respondents 3 and 4 in accordance with law. He shall decide the same without being influenced by the report submitted by the MRO or by any of the observations made by the first respondent in the impugned order. "

( 2 ) WITH a view to dispose of this writ appeal, it is necessary to state the basic facts of the case. The appellants, who were in possession of the land in question, abandoned it, and created a lease in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners-respondent Nos. l and 2 herein. The said land changed two different hands, the last purchasers being the writ petitioners-respondent Nos. l and 2 herein. With regard to the aforementioned transaction, a dispute arose between the successor-in-interest of appellant No. 1 and the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein, which led to the filing of suit being O. S. No. 190 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Munsif, kothagudem, wherein inter alia, the following two issues were framed: (1) Whether the defendants sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and whether they executed the agreement of sale dated 15-6-1962? (2) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property on the date of filing of the suit?

( 3 ) THE learned trial Court answered the above two issues in the following terms:"the learned Counsel for the defendant has made strenuous efforts to support the case of the defendants by citing a decision reported in AIR 1982 A. P. 384 wherein three ingredients for granting of interlocutory injunction are laid down, a decision reported in AIR 1976 SC 2621 wherein also principles for granting interim injunctions are laid down and also a decision reported in air 1976 Orissa 31. But, I feel that the facts pleaded and established in this case do not attract the aforesaid decision, since we are considering possession for granting perpetual injunction whereas the aforesaid decisions are relating to principles of granting of interim injunction. Any way, when the Court comes to the conclusion finding lawful possession and when the defendants are not found in possession, the plaintiff would be entitled for legal protection. Therefore, I find these two issues in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. "

( 4 ) THE judgment and decree passed in the aforementioned suit attained finality. Thereafter, appellant No. 1 herein having regard to the fact that he was declared to be the owner of the land, purportedly in terms of the provisions of Section 38-E of the A. P, (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950, (for short the Act ) which came into force from 1-1-1973, he filed an application before the Revenue divisional Officer, purported to be one under Section 98 thereof, in which the mandal Revenue Officer, upon conducting enquiry, was directed to hand over possession of the land in favour of the appellants herein. The said order became subject matter of the aforementioned writ application.

( 5 ) SRI R. Kameswara Rao, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4-appellants herein inter alia submitted that having regard to the fact that there has been no transfer made by appellant No. 1 in favour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document