Back
2011 Supreme(AP) 1084
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
Peela Lakshmi & Others
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad & Others
W.P.No.5419 of 2011 & C.C.No.392 of 2011
Decided on : 03-12-2011
For the Petitioners:C. Ramachandra Raju, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, R3, Assistant Government Pleader. for Revenue, R4, R7, O. Manohar Reddy, Mr. V.V. Satish, Advocates.
Headnote:A) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, Sections 11 and 100 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 106 –Where the lessor and lessee have filed an eviction suit and injunction suit respectively against each other which was tried together and the trial court had allowed the eviction petition but dismissed the injunction petition and where both the appeals against these decrees were dismissed by the appellate court, failure to file second appeal against the injunction alone will be barred by resjudicata as the decree with regard to eviction has become final even if he failure o file appeal against the appeal order in the eviction suit is by mistake.
B) TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882, Section 106:- Once the relationship of lessor and lessee is admitted, appellant leassee is liable to be evicted as soon as the quit notice is issued. (Para 7)
C) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, Section 9 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 106:- Single eviction suit in respect of two agreements, one in respect of the premises and the other with regard to fixtures, is permissible so far as the fixtures are in the same premises. (Para 8)
D) CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, Order 3 Rule 2:- Though normally GPA cannot give evidence with regard to omissions and commission of the principal, where the GPA himself had executed the lease deed in respect of which eviction suit is filed, evidence of GPA with acts done under the lease deeds cannot be discarded in the absence of the leasor’s evidence. (Paras 9 to 12)
The Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside G.O.Ms.No.926, Revenue (UC.1) Department, dated 31-8-2009 issued by respondent No.1, by declaring that the same is without jurisdiction, gross abuse of power, highly arbitrary, malafide and contrary to its own order dated 5-8-2006, G.O.Ms.No.456, dated 29-7-2002, G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18-6-2008 and the order of this Court dated 25-8-2009 in W.P.No.10947/2009. The petitioner sought for a further declaration that proceedings C.C.No.4567/76/B3, dated 19-9-2009 of respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioners’ representation as illegal and unsustainable. The petitioners sought for a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to regularize the extents of Ac.0-82 cents and Ac.6-00 in old Sy.Nos.81/1 and 81/3, corresponding to new Sy.No.81/3P and patta No.165 of Marripalem village, Visakhapatnam Mandal and District in favour of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.747, dated 18-6-2008.
2. The Contempt Case is filed by respondent Nos.4, 6 and 7 (hereinafter referred to as “the private respondents”) in the Writ Petition, to punish the writ petitioners under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
3. For convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition.
4. One Josyula Bhuvaneshwar Das, father of respondent Nos.4 to 6, was the original owner of Ac.0-82 cents and Ac.6-00 cents, comprised in old Sy.Nos.81/1 and 81/3 respectively, corresponding to new Sy.Nos.81/3P and covered by patta No.165, Marripalem village (hereinafter referred as “the subject land”). The petitioners pleaded that one Yellapu Raghavamma purchased the subject land under sale deed dated 18-10-1965 from the said Bhuvaneshwar Das. The petitioners claimed right and possession over the subject land through the said Yellapu Raghavamma, who appears to be the mother of some of the petitioners. They pleaded that after the death of Yellapu Raghavamma, the petitioners have divided the subject land among the family members and constructed seven houses thereon; that the houses were assessed to municipal tax, water tax etc., and separate house numbers were assigned; that the petitioners were availing power supply, telephone connection, water supply and getting civil supplies and that the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records maintained by respondent No.6. In the year 2008, respondent No.2 issued notices to the petitioners stating that the lands shown therein are surplus lands under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the ULC Act”), calling upon them to seek regularization of their possession. The petitioners filed W.P.No.10947/2009 wherein they have inter alia averred that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the extent of Ac.6-82 cents inherited from their mother; that neither the petitioners have filed any declaration under the ULC Act nor they are parties to the ULC proceedings; that they made a representation on 28-8-2008 to the authorities under the ULC Act explaining the circumstances under which they became the owners of the subject land and that therefore they are not liable to be evicted. Respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein were impleaded as respondent Nos.8 to 11 in the said Writ Petition. They have pleaded that their ancestor J. Anantha Padmanabha Das filed declaration under the ULC Act in respect of entire surplus land which includes the subject land and that the application of those respondents for regularization of their possession is pending. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 25-8-2009 directing the authorities under the ULC Act to consider representation dated 28-8-2009, purported to have been made by the petitioners and pass orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order after hearing of the parties concerned. It was further directed that till disposal of the representation, the respondents shall maintain status quo as to the possession of the petitioners. Respondent No.1 has
