1988 PLP 87 (MLD)

The case is fixed today for hearing of the interim application., C.M.A. No. 3? 57 /87, but, with the consent of the learned counsel, who are present the entire suit is being disposed of. Mr. Mohammad Ali Shaikh, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, submits that the Plaintiffs have filed this suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 from dispossessing the plaintiff from 64 acres of land mentioned in the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the said land had been ranted to defendant No. 7, but thereafter there is an order for the transfer of these lands to the plaintiffs, but Mr. Halepota submits that the defendant No.7 had denied this in his written statement. Mr. Halepota, learned counsel for the defendants Nos.3 to 6, stated that his Clients were under an impression that 64 acres of land, which are proposed to be anted to defendants Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 and which are in their occupation, had seen granted to the plaintiffs and in the circumstances they had filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, but after filing of the appeal they came to know that the lands proposed to be granted to defendants Nos. 3 to 5 are different than the lands granted to the plaintiffs. According to Mr. Halepota, this position will be clarified in the order of the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad, proposed to be passed on 24-2-1988. It is further submitted by Mr. Halepota, on instructions, that the only dispute between defendants Nos. 3 to 6 with the plaintiffs is that about 2,000 square yards of land, There a boundary wall had been constructed by defendants Nos. 3 to 6, had been encroached upon unlawfully by the plaintiffs. This is denied by the plaintiffs in any case, Mr. Halepota states that for redress of the grievance of the defendants Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 in respect of unlawful encroachment and to some damage that had been done to their crops, the defendants Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are taking action n accordance with the law by moving the Revenue Authorities, and after getting in order for ejectment of the plaintiffs from the aforesaid area of about 2,000 square yards, action will be taken in accordance with law by defendants Nos. 3, 4, and 6 for actual dispossession of the plaintiffs there from. The statement made by Mr. Halepota on instructions is taken on record. Mr. Mohammad Ali Shaikh learned counsel for the plaintiffs, is satisfied with the statement made today Mr. Halepota. Suit No.496 of 1987 is disposed of in terms of the statement made Mr. Halepotaa with no order as to costs. The ad-interim order passed on 8-7-1987 stands recalled as the entire suit has been disposed of and C.MA. No. 3157 of 1987 has become infructuous. M.Y.H/I-47/K Order accordingly.