Jetti Issac vs Gummadi Ramesh

Samudrala Govindarajulu, J.—When both the Courts (tenancy authorities) below refused to grant permanent injunction in favour of the petitioner on the ground that he was not a statutory tenant in the schedule land and he is not in possession of the same and dismissed the tenancy case as well as tenancy appeal, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner is in possession of the land and his possession is protected by this Court by passing status quo order dated 03.01.2013 in C.R.P No. 6569 of 2012. Status quo order means that possession as on the date of the order on the land/field shall be maintained. There is no finding by any Court much less by this Court that the petitioner/complainant herein was in possession of the schedule property. In the absence of any such finding and in view of finding of both the Courts below that the petitioner is not in possession of the schedule property, it cannot be said that the respondent has committed contempt, in case he made constructions in the schedule land. It is not as if the entire world and entire activity should come to a stand still and should remain static because of status quo order. I find that there is no violation of the status quo order by the respondent when he constructed the structures in the schedule land. Hence the contempt case is dismissed.