Municipal authorities must perform lawful duties without interference; injunctions against them require clear proof of illegal actions or violations.

ORDER :

RENUKA YARA, J.

1. Heard Sri. D. Kaval Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri. Bhaskar Muthyala, learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.03.2025 in C.M.A. No. 97 of 2024 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, confirming the order passed in I.A. No. 1025 of 2024 in O.S. No. 4186 of 2024 dated 04.10.2024, wherein, a petition filed by the appellants/petitioners seeking temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the suit schedule properties consisting of Schedule A and B properties i.e.,H.No.13-6-438/2/9 admeasuring 161 sq.yards at Jaffarguda, Hyderabad and H.No.13- 6-431/D/82/7/1 admeasuring 32 sq. yards at Jaffarguda, Hyderabad, has been dismissed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners herein have filed a suit in O.S. No. 4186 of 2024 for perpetual injunction against the respondents herein who are official respondents and the unofficial respondent No. 3 to restrain them from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment and from causing any interference with construction of the petitioners over the suit schedule A and B properties. The case of the petitioners herein is that they are absolute owners and possessors of Schedule A and Schedule B properties having purchased them under registered sale deed document Nos. 3747 of 2015 and 3748 of 2015 dated 01.09.2012 from one E. Ponchamma. After purchase of the properties, the petitioners allowed the vendors to do scrap business in the Schedule A and B properties. The vendors did not vacate the premises in spite of several requests made by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners submitted a representation to GHMC officials informing them about the unauthorised scrap business being carried out in the premises. Upon receipt of such a complaint, the GHMC officials have issued a demolition order dated 10.07.2024 and also got removed the scrap business from Schedule A and B properties and said properties were handed over to the petitioners. Thereafter, the respondents who had no right or interest over the Schedule A and B properties are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. The respondents have an eyesore with respect to Schedule A and B properties. There was an attempted criminal trespass on 19.08.2024 and the same was resisted. Thereafter, again on 27.08.2024, the respondents with their henchmen came to the properties and interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners. There is possibility of collusion between the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and there is possibility of illegal encroachment on the suit schedule properties. The illegal attempts made by the respondents are resisted with the help of the neighbours. However, the respondents threatened the petitioners with dire consequences and when a complaint is sought to be lodged against the respondent No. 3, the police refused to take the same. In the circumstances, a suit in O.S. No. 4186 of 2024 for perpetual injunction is filed. When notice was served on the respondents, they did not appear and therefore, were set ex parte.

4. The trial Court dealt with the interlocutory application i.e., I.A. No. 1025 of 2024 by examining the exhibited documents filed by the petitioners under Exs.P.1 to P.16. Ex.P.1 is certified copy of gift settlement deed No.1048 of 2012 dated 16.03.2012; Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of sale deed document No.2008 of 1999 dated 16.07.1998; Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of sale deed docume