http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4384-4385 of 2002

PETITIONER: T. Krishna Reddy & Ors

RESPONDENT: M. Bagi Reddy & Anr

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/05/2008

BENCH: TARUN CHATTERJEE & HARJIT SINGH BEDI

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

                                       NON-REPORTABLE

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4384-4385 OF 2002

T. Krishna Reddy & Ors.                     ......Appellants

                         Vs.

M. Bagi Reddy & Anr.                      .......Respondents

                      JUDGMENT

HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.

1.   These appeals arise out of the following facts.

2.   The appellant and his predecessors-in-interest were

    cultivating the suit land to the extent of about 9.2 acres

    falling under survey No. 357 of Alwal village, Malkajgiri

    Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in Andhra Pradesh and an

    ownership certificate under section 38E of the Andhra

    Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural

    Lands Act, 1950 had also been issued in their favour. In

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

                       2

1988, the appellants, pursuant to a family partition

whereby they had been put in exclusive possession of the

suit land, filed an application before the Divisional

Revenue Officer for the issuance of a revised ownership

certificate under Section 38E and after due enquiry a

revised ownership certificate was, in fact, issued.   The

respondents herein challenged the issuance of the

aforesaid revised certificate before the Joint Collector,

who dismissed the appeal by his order dated 19th June

1995 and a petition against this said order was

dismissed by the High Court and the second appeal filed

by the respondents against the order of the Joint

Collector was also dismissed on 6th April 2000.       The

respondents, who are in possession of the adjoining

lands being survey Nos.355 and 405, filed a civil suit on

8th April 1996 before the Subordinate Judge Court,

Ranga Reddy District seeking permanent injunction

against the appellants with respect to the suit land i.e.

the land in Survey No.357. The trial court decreed the

suit in favour of the respondents herein.   Aggrieved by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

                             3

    the order of the trial court, the present appellants filed

    an appeal and the appellate court re-appreciated the

    evidence and keeping in view the fact that a certificate

    under section 38E had been issued to the appellants

    which showed that they were in possession of the land,

    allowed the appeal. The respondents herein carried the

    matter in second appeal to the High Court and also filed

    a petition against the order dated 19th June 1995 passed

    by the Joint Collector confirming the validity of the

    certificate granted under section 38E.   The High Court

    dismissed the petition challenging the order dated 19th

    June 1995 but without framing any substantial question

    of law, allowed the second appeal filed against the order

    of the Civil Court.   It is in this circumstance that the

    present matter is before us.

3.   During the course of hearing, it has been pointed out by

    the learned counsel for the appellants          that writ

    proceedings under the Inams Abolition Act are pending

    in the High Court and as the outcome of the aforesaid

    proceedings would have an important bearing on the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

                               4

    present matter as well, it would, perhaps, be prudent to

    remit this matter to the High Court to be heard along

    with the writ petition. It has been pointed out that in the

    last paragraph of the impugned judgment of the High

    Court, the relevance of the Inam proceedings then

    pending     before   the   competent   authority       has     been

    recognized by the High Court, and an observation made

    that they would determine the fate of the dispute.                We

    accordingly allow these appeals, set aside the order of

    the High Court and direct that this matter be heard along

    with Writ Petition No.17605 of 2003 pending in the

    Andhra Pradesh High Court. We clarify that nothing in

    this order be construed as an expression on the merits of

    the case.

4.   The appeals are allowed accordingly.

                                     .................................J.                                       (TARUN CHATTERJEE)

                                     .................................J.                                       (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

                   5

New Delhi,

Dated May 8, 2008