JUDGMENT :

N.TUKARAMJI, J.

I have heard Mr. M. Jagannatha Sarma, learned Counsel for the appellants in AS No.635 of 2007 and respondents in AS No.610 of 2007; Mr. Krishna Reddy Putta, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipalities, representing the respondents in AS No.635 of 2007 and appellants in AS No.610 of 2007.

2. Appeal Suit No.610 of 2007 was filed by defendant Nos.1 and 4, whereas Appeal Suit No.635 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiff. Both appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree dated 07.02.2003 passed in Original Suit No.69 of 1993 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial.

3. Given that the subject-matter of both appeals is intrinsically connected and arises from the same set of facts and legal findings, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment for the sake of judicial economy and consistency.

4. For the purpose of clarity and convenience, the parties in these appeals are referred to in this judgment as per their original designations before the Trial Court, unless otherwise indicated.

5. (i) The 1st plaintiff’s case in brief is as follows: she is the title holder of the suit schedule property-land measuring Ac.0-04 guntas, in Sy.No.430 and the old house Bearing No.1-1-126-through succession. Upon obtaining requisite permissions dated 22.01.1974, constructed RCC shops and a residential building on the ground and first floors by May, 1986.

(ii) The defendants (Jagtial Municipality) allegedly marked these structures for demolition in connection with the widening of the Outer Ring Road (ORR). In response, the plaintiff filed OS No.256 of 1986 before the District Munsiff, Jagtial, seeking a perpetual injunction. A temporary injunction was granted during pendency, and the suit was eventually decreed in her favour on 31.08.1988 and it became final. In 1992, the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Jagtial, initiated proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act, treating part of the plaintiff’s property as Government land.

(iii) The plaintiff challenged this action by filing WP No.1516 of 1993, during which the MRO submitted that the encroachment proceedings had been withdrawn and issued closing orders dated 21.12.1992. Nevertheless, on 11.02.1993, the Municipal Commissioner, Jagtial, affixed a notice directing removal of the construction by 15.02.1993. The plaintiff, through a detailed Telegram, responded by referencing the decree in OS No.256 of 1986 and the order dated 15.02.1993 in the writ petition. Despite this, the defendants allegedly demolished 41-50 Square meters of the ground floor and 8-16 Square meters of first-floor constructions and removed building materials, fixtures, and doors without further notice.

(iv) As a result, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking a mandatory injunction for restoration of a demolished building or, in the alternative, compensation of Rs.95,000/- for reconstruction. Additionally, sought for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from further interference, compensation for loss of rental income from shops at Rs.2,000/- per month, future loss of rent at an enhanced rate, and special and general damages amounting to Rs.1,25,000/- for loss of reputation and defamation. Additionally, she claimed 24% interest on the amounts due from 15.02.1993.

6. (i) In their written statement, the defendants contended that the plaintiff had extended construction beyond the permitted boundary, encroaching upon road margins. Following a joint inspection, a notice was issued requesting title and permission documents, warning of adverse conclusions in the absence thereof. They further contended that the permission dated 22.10.1974 for building construction was only valid until 21.10.1975, after which fresh permission was required. A provisional stop-work order was issued on 26.04.1976 and confirmed shortly thereafter, directing the plaintiff to dismantle encroaching portions within four days (notice issued on 27.04.1976).

(ii) In line with the municipality’s