The court affirmed that the lower court's failure to verify legal titles and adherence to land transfer regulations invalidated its injunction order, demonstrating the significance of procedural correctness in property disputes.

ORDER :

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J.

1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order passed in CMA No.1 of 2021, dated 26.10.2022 by the Court of Agent to Government, Khammam.

2. Petitioner is the respondent and respondent is the appellant in CMA No.1 of 2021.

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 2011 in OS.No.87 of 2011 is dated 27.08.2018, whereas the Appeal was filed in the year 2021 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.

6. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order passed by the Court of Agent to Government, Khammam in CMA No.1 of 2021, dated 26.10.2022 suffers from any perversity or illegality? If so, does it require interference of this Court?

7. Petitioner has filed suit in OS No.87 of 2011 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 claiming 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.03-00 guntas situated at Maddulapally Village of Kamepally Mandal in Khammam District with specific boundaries.

8. Respondent who is the defendant in the suit has filed her written statement and contended that the alleged sale deed dated 02.05.2010 is not true, valid and binding which was created by Venkat Reddy to overcome the regulation 1/59, amended by 1/170, who is not a tribe and Venkat Reddy is the man behind the litigation. An LTR case No.821/75 is booked between Siddoboina Mallaiah and N.Chandraiah, father of N.Venkat Reddy, ejectment order was made on 20.10.1976 against which N.Chandraiah filed CMA No.53/77 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 27.01.1997.

9. The petitioner along with OS No.87 of 2011 has also filed an application vide IA.No.56 of 2011 seeking ad-interim injunction order against the respondent. The respondent filed her counter which is in consonance with her written statement. The learned Mobile Court passed an order on 01.03.2013 granting injunction to the petitioner. The respondent aggrieved by the order in IA No.56 of 2011 in OS No.87 of 2011, dated 01.03.2013 filed CRP No.4796 of 2013 before the High Court. The High Court vide order dated 21.11.2014 has remanded the matter to the Mobile Court for fresh disposal and if