JUDGMENT:

State Government is the appellant. The appeal is filed under Section 100 C.P.C. It questions the correctness of judgment dated 05.03.2010 in A.S.No.87 of 2009 of learned VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada. By the impugned judgment, the first appellate Court agreed with the findings and conclusions reached by the trial Court in O.S.No.851 of 2002 of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

2. It was an appeal against sole respondent. Respondent was plaintiff before the trial Court and was the respondent before the first appellate Court. During pendency of the appeal, respondent/plaintiff died on 10.08.2019. Thereafter, respondent No.2, who is proper and necessary party to the appeal; respondent Nos.3 and 4, who purchased a part of the plaint schedule property, and respondent No.5 in whose favour the deceased respondent No.1/plaintiff executed a Will are impleaded. The entire dispute revolves around an erroneous entry in revenue records, which was sought to be rectified through the civil Courts by way of mandatory injunction. Both the Courts below granted the relief to the plaintiff and thereby directed the appellant to rectify the wrong classification in their revenue records.

3. On 21.10.2011 a learned judge of this Court admitted this appeal on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the plaintiff without seeking a declaration to his title can seek mandatory injunction to change the revenue record according to his title?”

4. The alleged incorrect entry is with reference to immovable property which is mentioned in the plaint schedule. It is Ac.1.45 cents vacant dry agricultural land in R.S.No.225/3A in Ibrahimpatnam Village. The boundaries to it are that: on East: it is Budameru Diversion Canal Bund; on South: it is Road; on West: it is Krishna River Flood Bank; on North: it is P.W.D. Poramboke land.

5. Sri Koganti Jagannada Rao filed O.S.No.851 of 2002 stating that Sri Koganti Kotaiah is his grandfather and Sri Naraiah is father of the plaintiff. That from the time of ancestors, their family owned and possessed Acs.5.79 cents of land, which includes the plaint schedule land. All throughout, the ancestors and thereafter the plaintiff are shown in the revenue records as owners and pattadar of this land. In the year 1957 for the purpose of Budameru Flood Diversion Channel, State of Andhra Pradesh acquired Acs.4.35 cents of land from out of Acs.5.79 cents of land. Thus, there remained Ac.1.45 cents of land, which is shown in the plaint schedule. Thus, the plaint schedule property has been in continuous and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not have any other land anywhere in the country.

6. In the year 2001 this plaint schedule land was noted as Government Poramboke in the revenue records though it is a private land. The plaint schedule land was not acquired by the defendant or any other authority for any purpose. Thus, there is wrong entry and it must have been made because of a private grudge cherished by Village Administrative Officer. Seeking for rectification of it, plaintiff got issued a notice under Section 80 C.P.C. on 27.01.2002. It was received by defendant on 29.01.2002. On 16.02.2002 proceedings were issued to Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam and its copy was served on the counsel for plaintiff. However, after such proceedings, there was no further response from the defendant. It is in those circumstances, plaintiff filed the suit with a prayer that is extracted here:

“Directing the defendant to rectify the wrong classification of plaint schedule land in the revenue records by changing it as plaintiff’s patta land by way of mandatory injunction or other direction and for costs and such other reliefs?”

7. In response to it, the District Collector, Krishna representing the defendant filed a written statement. In it, it is stated that Koganti family had got Acs.5.79 cents in R.S. No.225, Ibrahimpatnam Village. A