Gopina Narayana v. Gopina Nagulu

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: J SREENIVAS RAO

Judgment date: 2026-04-17

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-04-17. Gopina Narayana v. Gopina Nagulu. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.

Judgment text

33031 [ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 984 OF 2026 Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated 31. O1. 2026 passed in lANo. 195 ot 2024 in OS,No. 200 of 2024, on the file of the Court of lhe Court of the Agent to Government, Bhadradi Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Between: 1. Gopina Narayana, S/o late Venkanna, Aged about 61 years, Occu. Agriculture, (R/o Kotha Naramvarigudem Village, Aswaraopet Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. 2. Gopina Baburao, S/o Narayana, Aged about 3'l years. Occu. Agriculture, R/o Kotha Naramvarigudem Village, Aswaraopet Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. 3. Gopina Ramakrishna, S/o Narayana, Aged about 29 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Kotha Naramvarigudem Village, Aswaraopet Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ...

PETITIONERS/RESPONOENTS/DEFEM DEMTS AND Gopina Nagulu, S/o late Venkanna, Aged about 66 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Kotha Naramvarigudem Village, Aswaraopet Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. ... RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFF l. A- NO: 1OF 2026 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 Suspend the operation of the decree and order dated 31-01 . 2026, passed in lANo. 1g5 0t 2024 in tlSNo. 200 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Agent to-Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, Bhadradrr Kothagudem District, pending disposal of the above CRp Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Kondaparthi Srinivasa Counsel for the Respondents : Ms. Devara Samhitha, counsel representing Sri Penuballi Ramesh Babu The Court made the following : ORDER HSFIEFF '? z --. ,. _'t . r' ',/ , IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAI) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.

SREENTVAS RAO CwIL REVISION PETITION No. 984 of 2o26 Date: 17. 04. 2026 Between: Gopina Narayana and two others . petitione rs defendalts / AND Gopina Nagulu ... respondent/ plaintiff ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners/ defendants, aggrieved by the interim injunction order dated 31. 01. 2026 granted in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff by the learned Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem in I. A. No. l95 of 2O24 in O. S. No. 2OO of 2024. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that the respondent/plaintiff Ftled O. S. No. 2OO of 2024 on the frle of the learned Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, against the ir} , peti tioners/ defendants for grart of perpetual injunction restraining them irom interfering with the suit schedule property i. e. , land admeasuring Acs. 5-O5 guntas in Sy. No. i9 1 1 I /37 , sirurated at Maramvari Gudem village, Asrrarao Peta Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

Along wrrh the suit, the l,Jaintiff file,J i. 6. 1,1o. 195of 2024 forgrantof temporan, injlrncrion and the saiC I. A. was allowed on 31 . O1. 2026. Hence, the present Flevrsion petition. 3. Hearrd Mr. Kondi:Lparrhv Srl::ivasa, learnecl counsel for tht: petitioners, and Ms. Devara liamtritha, Iearned counsel replesenting Mr. f-enuballi Ramesh Babu, learnecl counsel for the respondr:nt. 4. Lealned counsel lor the peritioners/defendants submitted rhat the leeLrned Aeent to Government, without properly con sidering the contentions raised by the petitioners ar,d the material placed on recorcl, allowed the application based on the aJleged report submitted by the Tahsildar, datecl 08. 11. 2024. Though the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of the subject prop(:rty, the learned Agent to Government, rvithout assigning an,v reasons, a_llowed the J application arrd the same is not sustainable under law. He further submitted that petitioner No' I had earlier filed O. S. No.

628 of 2O2O on the hle of the Special Assistant Agent- cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Bhadrachalam, against the respondent/ plaintiff and others lor grant of perpetual injunction in respect of the very same schedule property mentioned in the present case and the learned Special Agent was pleased to grant an ad inteim injunction in I. A. No. 676 ol 2O2O in O. S. No. 628 of 2O2O and the same is continuing. The said interim injunction is still in force and the suit is pending. Suppressing the above sajd facts, the respondent/plaintiff liled O. S. No. 200 of 2024. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Agent to Government is liable to be set aside. 5. Per contra, leamed counsel for the respondent submitted that the schedule property mentioned in O. S. No. 628 of 2O2O and O. S. No. 2OO of 2024 are distinct and different.

The learned Agent to Government, upon considering the contentions raised by the respective parties, came to a conclusion that the respondent/ plaintiff is in possession of 'has the property been cultivating a standing crop (oil and palm plantation) tbr the last ten years. Hence, the Agent to Government has rightly allowed LA. No. l9S and gralted interim injuction and there are no grounds interfere rvitl. r the impugned order dated 31. 01 . 2026 by the Agent to ()overnrnent ancl tl-re Civil petition Revision Iiabte to be dismissed. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it i-s nct in dispute that the respondent/plaintif I-rled O. S. No. 2OO of 2024 f.. n grant of perpetual injunction restraining3 the peti tion ers,/ cie fenda;rts from interfering the sr-ibject properr-v. Along u,itl-r the said suit, I. A. No. 2024 was iiled under Rule .

42 (C) of the Agency liules, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules,) for grant of temporary injunction. As per the said provisions, the Agent Covernment ought to have recorded the reasons based t'h e pleadings ard documents filed by the respective u'hiie disposing of the application. 7 . A penrsal of the impugned order reveals that the Agent to Government recorded the arguments +4, responde nt/ plaintiff, petitioners/ defendants and brief facts of the case and in the analvsis portion, recorded the averments of the counter. The Iearned Agent to Government based upon the report submitted by the Tahsildar, came to a conclusion that the respondent/ plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property and allowed the application, without assigning any reasons, much less valid reasons. It is relevant to mention that the learned Agent to Government has to adjudicate the proceedings under the Agency Rules as a Civil Court.

Hence, this Court is ol the view that the learned Agent to Government, while deciding the interlocutory application or the main case, has to asslgn reasons. 8. In the case on hand, it is already stated supra, the learned Agent to Government, without assigning reasons, allowed the application by recording the submissions, pleadings and facts of the case, and the report submitted by \ the Tahsildar, and the same is contrary to the principle laid \ down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajsasthan Vs. \ Rajendra Prasad Jainr, wherein it was held that the reason is (2ooE) I ' 15 scc 7 I the hearbeat of every conclusion, and rn ithout the same, it becomes lifeless. 9. For the foregoing reasons as u,ell as the precedent decisions, the impugned order datecl 3 l. Ol. 2026 passed by the learned Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, is iiable to be set aside, accordingly set aside. The learned Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem is directed to decide I. A. No.

195 of 2024 afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties, as expeditiously as possible, preferably rvithin a period of one (l) month from the date of receipt of a cop-y of this order and till such time, both the parties are directing to maintain status quo in respect of the possession of the suit schedule property. 10. With the above direction, the Civit Revision petition is disposed of accordingly_ There shall be no order as to costs. Miscelianeous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/- P. C. SULEKHA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR rQ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Agent to Government. Bhadradi Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. 2 One CC to SRl. KONDAPARTHI SRINIVASA Advocate IOPUCI 3 One CC to SRl. PENUBALLI RAMESH BABU Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies '=-:=:ffi,;.. ,;l=-. -T[:"ill HIGH COURT DATED: 1710412026 ,,;Ii |/:-. L- iA '. t tt' 't: , \. ,' a-\ ,"* N" a- Cl a li il i' I a' ORDER , ) ( : \i CRP. No.

984 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE CRP )[

Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.