THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3444 OF 2023

ORDER:

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in Memo SR.No.1489 of 2023 in A.S.No.77 of 2019.

2. Petitioners herein are the respondent Nos. 2, 4, 7, 9, 5, 10, 12 and 14, respondent No.1 herein is the appellant, respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein are the respondent Nos.11, 1, 3 and 13 in A.S.No.77 of 2019.

3. Respondent No.1 herein - Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short ‘GHMC’) has filed an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar vide A.S.No.77 of 2019 against the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1902 of 2008 dated 17.06.2011. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.11 therein - Hastinapuram North Extension Residents Welfare Association, represented by its Secretary has filed a Memo S.R.No.1489 of 2023 in A.S.No.77 of 2019 on 16.03.2023 contending that association has approached the High Court and they obtained status-quo order in W.P.No.33116 of 2012. Basing on the said memo the Appellate Court has passed an order vide Memo SR.No.1489 of 2023 in A.S.No.77 of 2019 dated 04.07.2023, holding that status-quo order is passed until further orders. The appellant cannot proceed.

Hence memo is upheld.

4. Petitioners herein - respondent Nos. 2, 4, 7, 9, 5, 10, 12 and 14, have challenged the said order in the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the Appellate Court is vitiated by various irregularities and surmises and the Memo SR.NO.1489 of 2023 is not maintainable and devoid of merits, which is contrary to law, pleadings and judgment on record in O.S.No.1902 of 2008 dated 17.06.2011. The Appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that Hastinapuram North Extension Residents Welfare Association, represented by its Secretary, is not a party in the Trial Court (O.S.No.1902 of 2008) and the order came to be passed without applying judicial mind. The Appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioners herein have filed W.P.No.28589 of 2022 and obtained status-quo order in I.A.No.1 of 2022 on 14.07.2022 against the official respondents therein in respect of the schedule property shown in O.S.No.1902 of 2008 and the Appellate Court committed error in allowing the memo. In support of her contention, she relied on a decision in the case of Syed Yousuf Ali Vs. Mohd. Yousuf and another, 2016 (2) ALT 557 (S.B) and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

6. Respondent No.1 – GHMC has field counter and contended that the land claimed by the petitioners is a Government land and the Hastinapuram North Extension Residents Welfare Association, did not made any attempt to occupy the property. The petitioners have high handedly demolished the boundary wall of the public park with the help of anti-social elements and JCB and that they have lodged a complaint against the petitioners for damaging the compound wall worth of Rs.3,00,000/- on 20.09.2008, the Police, L.B.Nagar has registered a case in Crime No.888 of 2008 under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC. HUDA authorities have tentatively approved layout plan in Survey Nos.25 to 29 and 58 (part) of Karmanghat village vide permit No.3792/MP2/HUDA/1994, dated 25.10.1994 and as per the said tentative layout, the land is admeasuring Ac.21-20 guntas. Revision petitioners failed to show sufficient causes or reasons for allowing the present Civil Revision Petition and prayed to dismiss the present Civil Revision Petition.

7. Heard learned counsel, perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is: whether the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court in Memo SR.No.1489 of 2023 in A.S.NO.77 of 2019 suffers from any illegality or perversity, if so requires interference of this Court?

9.1 P.Linga Reddy, P.Srinivas Red