THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2394 OF 2025

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and Special Assistant Agent to Government, Mobile Court at Bhadrachalam (‘trial Court’ for brevity) wherein I.A.No.86 of 2024 in O.S.No.99 of 2024 dated 30.04.2025 filed by the petitioner for ad-interim injunction was dismissed.

2. Heard Ms. Devara Samhitha, learned counsel, representing Sri P.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Katyayani, learned counsel, representing Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their nomenclature in the trial Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the plantiff filed suit vide O.S.No.99 of 2024 for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the physical possession of the land to an extent of Ac.2.32 guntas in survey No.626 of 279 sitatued at Jagannadhapuram village of Mulakalapalli Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District (‘suit schedule property’ for brevity). Along with the said suit, the plaintiff has filed an application in I.A.No.86 of 2024 for grant of ad interim injunction by invoking Rule 42(c) of Andrha Pradesh (Telangana State) Agency Rules, 1924 (‘Rules’ for brevity) and the said application was dismissed on 30.04.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently contended that the trial Court without considering the documentary evidence on record simply relying on the report submitted by the Tahsildar dated 01.05.2025, dismissed the application, though the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. Learned counsel further contended that the Court below has not given opportunity of filing objections to the report submitted by the Tahsildar and the said report was not marked as exhibit either in interlocutory application or in the suit. Hence, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is contrary to law.

6. In support of her contention, learned counsel relied upon the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.1777 of 2022 dated

05.12.2022.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants submits that the trial Court allowed I.A.No.130 of 2024 and directed the Tahsildar, Mulakalapalli Mandal to conduct survey, demarcation and inspection of the suit schedule property and submit report. Pursuant to the said order only, the Tahsildar submitted report dated 01.05.2025 and the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.130 of 2024 has become final. The petitioner has not questioned the above said order. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to contend that the Tahsildar is not having any right or authority to submit report dated 01.05.2025. Admittedly, the petitioner is not in possession of the suit schedule property. The respondents/defendants are in possession of the schedule property. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trail Court and the civil revision petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed.

8. Having considered the rival submissions made by respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record it reveals that the respondent/defendants filed I.A.No.130 of 2024 for conducting survey and demarcation of the suit schedule property. The trial Court has allowed the said application and directed the Tahsildar, Mulakalapalli Mandal to conduct survey and submit report. Accordingly, the Tahsildar has submitted report on 01.05.2025. According to respondents they are cultivating the land in Survey No.626/241/P located in Jagannadhapuram Village, Mulakalapally Mandal. If the land in possession of the respondents/defendants is Government Land, the petitioner is not having any right in the subject property, whereas the petitioner is relying on the records i.e., Pattadar Pass books claiming that