In a significant judgment reinforcing the power of restitution and protection of tenant rights, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside a lower court’s decision and directed the restoration of agricultural land to a retired Tahsildar, Musunuri Satyanarayana, ending a two-decade-long legal dispute over possession and sale of tenanted property.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Nyapathy Vijay in Civil Revision Petition No. 2636 of 2023, filed by the petitioner, Musunuri Satyanarayana, who appeared as party-in-person. The respondents were Dr. Tummala Indira Devi and others, represented by advocate Arrabolu Sai Naveen and Sri Koutilya.
Background of the Case
The case finds its origin in A.T.C. No. 2 of 2003, filed under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, by Satyanarayana seeking a declaration that the price of the agricultural land he was cultivating was fair and that he was entitled to purchase the same from the landowner, Dr. Indira Devi, at Rs. 1,25,000 per acre in 10 installments.
The dispute involved approximately 10.76 acres of land at Mulukuduru, Guntur district, initially held under lease by Satyanarayana. A complex family arrangement and litigation ensued, including multiple A.T.C. proceedings and compromises. Satyanarayana claimed he had paid the first installment via Demand Draft, thereby making the sale effective under Section 16 of the Act.
Despite a status quo order during pendency, Dr. Indira Devi executed sale deeds in 2006 to Respondents 2 and 3, leading to Satyanarayana’s alleged dispossession from the land.
Key Legal Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to restitution of possession of the land after being dispossessed during pendency of litigation?
2. Whether sale deeds executed in violation of a status quo order are valid?
3. Whether execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 35(1) CPC r/w Sections 144 and 151 CPC are maintainable to seek restoration of possession?
Chronology of Litigation
– 2003: Satyanarayana filed A.T.C. No. 2 of 2003 seeking purchase of the land under tenancy rights.
– 2009: Special Officer allowed the A.T.C., declaring the sale effective and holding the sale deeds in favour of Respondents 2 and 3 null and void.
– 2010–2011: Respondents filed appeals (A.T.A. Nos. 2 & 8 of 2010); Appellate Court reversed the order, stating Satyanarayana had surrendered tenancy.
– 2011–2015: Civil Revisions (CRP Nos. 3591 & 816 of 2011) were dismissed by the High Court.
– 2021: Supreme Court in SLP(C) Nos. 28696–28697 of 2015 reversed all orders and restored the 2009 decision in Satyanarayana’s favour.
– 2021–2023: Satyanarayana filed E.P. No. 19 of 2021 seeking restoration of possession, which was dismissed.
– 2025: High Court sets aside that dismissal and grants relief.
Observations of the High Court
Justice Nyapathy Vijay made powerful observations about the obligation of courts to enforce rights upheld through prolonged litigation:
“The illegal act of encroachment by Respondent No.2… was validated [by the lower court], making the entire process of litigation a farce by placing premium on acts of the wrongdoer.”
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kavita Trehan v. Balsara Hygiene Products Ltd. (1994) 5 SCC 380, noting:
“The jurisdiction to make restitution is inherent in every court and will be exercised whenever the justice of the case demands… even in cases which do not fall under Section 144 CPC.”
Rejecting the respondent’s objection that the petitioner needed to file a separate suit for possession, the Court held:
“Once the order of the Special Officer is restored, enforcement should be with reference to the right recognised… as it existed as on the date of the institution.”
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and directed the Special Officer to ensure delivery of possession of the scheduled property to the petitioner within one month, even permitting police assistance suo motu to enforce the order.
“The power of restoration of possession is inherent in every Court and can be exercised even in cases which do not fall under Section 144 CPC… The impugned order ignores the fundamental obligation of the Court towards a successful litigant.”
