r 9 ' I IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) . MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY | TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 1158 OF 2025 Id -0 J A Between: M. Rama Chandra, c/o Macherla Rama Krishna, Aged 23 Years, Occ Business, R/o 13-841-C, VijayaNagar Colony, Guntakal, Anantapur District ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Guntakal, Anantapur District 4. The Tahsildar, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District 5. The Office of Sub Registrar, Rep by Sub Registrar, Guntakal, Anantapur District 6. Macherla Rama Krishna, s/o Macherla Basappa, Aged 60 Years, Occ Business, R/o 13-841-C, Vijaya Nagar Colony, Guntakal, Anantapur District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of The Tahsildhar, Guntakal For Mandal, Anantapur District, the Respondent herein in initiating process for keeping the Agriculture Lands in respective Survey Numbers 314-D2, 314-C No.4 539-A, 538-C, 522-A respectively r admeasuring an extent of Ac 1-60 Cents, Ac 5-25 Cents situated at Thimmanacherla Village, Ac 8-40 Cents, Ac 3-00 Cents, Ac 4-25 Cents situated at Kasapuram Village of Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District under disputed Survey Numbers of Revenue Records pending Civil Suit OS.No.9 of 2024 on the file of VI Additional District Judge Gooty as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 4th Respondent to keep Agriculture Lands in respective Survey Numbers 314-D2, 314-C, 539-A, 538-C, 522-A respectively admeasuring an extent of Ac 1-60 Cents, Ac 5-25 Cents situated at Thimmanacherla Village, Ac 8-40 Cents, Ac 3-00 Cents, Ac 4- 25 Cents situated at Kasapuram Village of Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District under disputed Survey Numbers during pendency of Civil Suit OS.No.9 of 2024 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Gooty. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 4*^ Respondents to take appropriate action in pursuance of Representation dt. 16.08.2024 for keeping Agriculture Lands in respective Survey Numbers 314-D2, 314-C, 539-A, 538-C respectively admeasuring an extent of Ac 1-60 Cents, Ac 5-25 Cents situated at Thimmanacherla Village, extent of Ac 8-40 Cents Cents, Ac 4-25 Cents situated at Kasapuram Village of Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District under disputed Survey Numbers of Revenue Records during pendency of Civil Suit OS.No.9 of 2024 on the file of VI Additional District Judge: Gooty. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI Y. SUBBA RAO FOR SRI N. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR STAMPS & REGISTRATION Counsel for the Respondent No.6:— The Court made the following: ORDER 522-A Ac 3-00 % APHC010015932 025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ■ LI [3328] MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 1158 of 2025 Between; 1. M. Rama Chandra, do. Macherla Rama Krishna Aged 23 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 13-841-C, Vijaya Nagar Colony, Guntakal, Anantapur District. ...PETITIONER AND I.The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2.The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 3.The Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Guntakal, Anantapur District. 4.The Tahsildar, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District. 5.The Office of Sub Registrar, Rep. by Sub Registrar, Guntakal, Anantapur District. 6.Macherla Rama Krishna, S/o Macherla Basappa, Aged 60 Years, Occ. Business, R/o. 13-841-C, Vijaya Nagar Colony, Guntakal, Anantapur District. ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.Y. SUBBA RAO for N. CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY c 2 GRKP,J W.P.No.ll58of2025 Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Mr. Y. Subba Rao, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr, N. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Ld. Counsel for Petitioner, and Ms, Baliboyina Sravani, Ld. Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. the Writ 2. Mr. Y. Subba Rao, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner, would submit that the Writ Petitioner has filed O.S.No.9 of 2024 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Gooty, partition of the Suit Schedule Properties, and the said Partition Suit is now pending. Ld. Counsel has also drawn the this Court to the ad-interim Crder granted by the Civil Court, dated 13.08.2024, in I.A.No.469 of 2024 in C.S.No.9 of 2024, directing the Respondent therein (Respondent No.6 herein) maintain Status Quo. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner that after the ad-interim Crder of Status Quo, dated 13.08.2024, has been passed, the Writ Petitioner has Representation to the Cfficial Respondents herein to place the for attention of to made a 3 GRKP,J W.P.No.U58of2025 Subject Property in the Dispute Register during pendency of the Partition Suit. As the Official Respondents have failed to act on the request made by the Writ Petitioner, vide his Application dated 16.08.2024 (Ex.P1), the Writ Petitioner has approached this Court, complaining of inaction on the part of the Official Respondents. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Civil Court, namely, the Court of the 3. VI Additional District Judge, Gooty, would be the appropriate Court to deal with a request of this nature i.e., to place the Subject Land in the Partition Suit in the Dispute Register. A Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, in 4. Abdul Mold and another v. District Magistrate, Bahraich and others [(2010) 81 ALR 581 : 2009 SCO OnLine All 885], had already indicated that the Civil Court is a better forum to approach for seeking any interim relief in a pending Suit rather than invoking the jurisdiction of a Writ Court. The relevant portions of the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench (Paragraphs 23 to 31) are usefully extracted hereunder: 4^ 4 grkp,j W.P.No.ll58of2025 23. Moreover, if the petitioner No. ' grievance in respect to the disobedience vioiation of the injunction order passed in reguiar suit No. 1058 of 1991, then he has adequate remedy for redressai under section 151 CPC. 2 has any of the dated 11.11.1991, of his grievance 24. Section 151 CPC provides 151 Saving of inherent powers of the Court.— Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be ofjustice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. The power of section 151 CPC to pass order of injunction in the form of restoration of possession of the Code is not res Integra now as under: 25. The inherent powers of the Court under are wide and are not subject to any limitations. Where in violation of a stay order injunction against a party, something has been in disobedience, it will be the duty of the policy to set the perpetuation of the wrong done. Section 151 CPC or done Court as a wrong right and not allow the 26. The inherent power will not only be a case, but it is bound to be exercised in that manner in the interests ofjustice. 151 CPC, ^ve ma^er of.judicial policy, the Court available in such 27. Even apart from section observe that as a 5 GRKP,J W.P.No.1158 of 2025 should guard against itself being stultified in circumstances like this by holding that it is not powerless to undo a wrong done in disobedience of the Court's order. But in this case it is not necessary to go to that extent as we hold that the power is available under section 151 CPC. Meera of 28. In the Chauhan v. Harsh Bishnoi [2007 (1) ARC 336], case the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “15. On a bare perusal of section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it cannot be said to be in dispute that section 151 confers wide powers on the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends ofjustice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. 17. In Manohar Lai Chopra v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, while dealing with the power of the Court to pass orders for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Courts have inherent jurisdiction to issue temporary order of injunction in the circumstances which are not covered under the provisions of Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure. 18. At the same time, it is also well settled that when parties violate order of injunction or stay order or act in violation of the said order the Court can, by exercising its inherent power, put back the parties in the same position as they stood prior to issuance of the injunction order or give appropriate direction to the police authority to render aid to the aggrieved parties for the due and proper implementation of the orders passed in the 6 GRKP.J W.P,No.n58of2025 suit and also order police protection for implementation of such order. 19. It is also well settled that when in the event of utter violation of the injunction order, the party forcibly dispossesses the other, the Court can order restoration of possession to the party wronged. ” 29. Further, in the case of Manohar v. Hira Lai [AIR 1962 SC 527], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: “While dealing with the power of the Court to pass orders in the ends of Justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the Court, the Court has got inherent powers to pass an order under section 151 CPC which confers wide power on the Court to make such orders as they may be necessary for the ends of Justice, or prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. ” 30. Further, in the case of Ram Chand & Sons Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. Kanhayalal Bhargava [(2004) 11 see 177], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: “The Inherent power of a Court is i addition to and complementary to the power expressly conferred under the Code. But that power will not be exercised If Its exercise is inconsistent with, or comes into conflict with, any of the powers expressly or by necessary implication conferred by the other provisions of the Code. If there are express provisions exhaustively covering a particular topic, they give rise to a necessary implication that power shall be exercised in respect of the said topic otherwise than in the manner prescribed by the said prjovisions. Whatever in no (i.- 7 GRKP.J W.P.No.ll58of2025 limitations are imposed by constructions on the provisions of section 151 of the Code, they do not control the undoubted power of the Court conferred under section 151 of the Code to make a suitable order to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. ” 31. As discussed above, the Court has inherent power under section 151 CPC to prevent the abuse of process of the Court by any of the parties. In these circumstances, once the petitioner No. 1 had already filed an application under section 151 CPC as directed by this Court and the same is still pending and the matter is subjudice, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter and the same position is also existing in respect of the grievance of the petitioner No. 2 who has raised grievance in respect to the disobedience or violation of injunction order granted on 11.11.1991 in Regular Suit No. 10548 of 1991 for which the petitioner No. 2 too has remedy under section 151 CPC for redressal of his grievance. ” Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition at the admission stage, without going into the merits, granting liberty to the Writ Petitioner to approach the Civil Court by filing an appropriate Application in the Partition Suit and by impleading the 5. 8 GRKP,J W.P.No.ll58of2025 Official Respondents herein, for seeking necessary directions to protect the Subject Property. 6. Let the Application be filed within two weeks from today before the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Gooty, in O.S.No.9 of 2024. Upon filing of such Application, the Trial Court is requested to dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of six weeks thereafter. Till the disposal of the Application filed by the Writ Petitioner, all the parties are directed not to create any third-party rights in respect of the Subject Property either by way of lease or sale or by any other mode of alienation. 7. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of 8. this Crder. I Sdf- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// FFICER SEC To 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District 2. The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District 3. The Revenue Divisional Cfficer/Sub Collector, Guntakal, Anantapur District r 4. The Tahsildar, Guntakal Mandal, Anantapur District The Sub Registrar, Office of Sub Registrar, Guntakal, Anantapur District One CC to Sri N. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Two CC’s to GP for Stamps and Registration, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OPUC] Three CD Copies. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ssb HIGH COURT . b • I 9 DATED:20/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.1158 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS