L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

The sole plaintiff in O.S.No.863 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, filed this appeal, feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, through judgment dated 26-04-2011.

The appellant is a Mutually Aided Co-operative Society. It filed the suit against the 1st respondent, Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of 73 acres of land in Sy.No.57 of Shamshiguda Village, Balanagar Mandal. The appellant pleaded that C.S.No.7 of 1958 was filed before this Court by the plaintiff therein, for the relief of partition and separate possession, in respect of various items of property, including the land in Sy.No.57 of Shamshiguda Village and that a compromise decree was passed therein, determining the shares of the respective parties. It is said to have acquired title in respect of the suit schedule property through assignment of interest from some of the decree-holders, and on the basis of such assignment, Application Nos.1459, 1460 and 1461 of 2000 were filed with prayers to a) implead it in the suit, as one of the defendants, b) recognize the assignment; and c) direct to the District Judge, Ranga Reddy District for delivery of possession thereof. It was pleaded that the applications were ordered by this Court on 20-10-2000, and in E.P.No.38 of 2002, filed in the Court of Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, the possession of the land was delivered to them, by the bailiff. The E.P is also said to have been closed, recording the delivery.

The grievance of the appellant was that, after the possession of land was delivered, with the assistance of the officials of the Survey and Land Records Department, the 1st respondent visited the site and proclaimed that the land belongs to Government, and no one should enter it. The appellant has also mentioned that with a view to protect the land from the encroachers, fencing was being erected and the 1st respondent instructed them not to proceed with the work of fencing. In that context, the relief of perpetual injunction was claimed.

The 1st respondent filed written-statement, opposing the suit. It is stated that though the Government of A.P., was impleaded as party in C.S.No.7 of 1958, it was deleted thereafter, and in that view of the matter, no adjudication, that has taken place in C.S.No.7 of 1958; would bind the Government. He further stated that the so-called delivery of possession is a fictitious exercise, and the possession of the land continues to be with the Government. According to the 1st respondent, the total extent of land in Sy.No.57 is Ac.274.33 guntas, and that it was not part of paigah properties. It was also pleaded that the orders in Application Nos.1459, 1460 and 1461 of 2000 were set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.58 of 2002 and batch, and in that view of the matter, there is absolutely no basis for filing the suit. Other contentions were also urged.

In the appeal, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary in Revenue Department was impeladed as the 2nd respondent herein.

Sri D. Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that the title in respect of the suit schedule property has accrued to the appellant, by virtue of the orders passed by this Court in Application Nos.1459, 1460 and 1461 of 2000, and possession was also delivered through Court. He contends that though the orders in Application Nos.1459, 1460 and 1461 of 2000 were set aside by a Division Bench of this Court in O.S.A.No.58 of 2002 and batch, no directions were issued therein, for redelivery of possession, nor any application was filed by the respondent, under Section 144 or under Rules 97 or 99 of Order XXI of C.P.C. He submits that the trial Court ought to have protected the possession of the land of the appellant, which was delivered through the process of the Court.

The learned Advocate-General appearing for th