ORDER:

Heard Ms.Grandhi Priyanka, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V.V.Satish, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri Shaik Umar Abdullah, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No.5 and Ms. M.Rose, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Ld. Standing Counsel for ZPP, MPP and Gram Panchayat.

2. The prayer in the Writ is as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction, declaring the highhanded action of the petitioner‟s shed and removed the coconut trees without following procedure of law under Land Encroachment Act or Panchayat Raj Act and without giving any notice to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of the Articles 14, 19, 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to demolish the structures and not to remove the coconut trees an extent of 1000 Square yards out of the total extent Ac.1-65 cents covered under R.S.No.523 of Chinakondepudi Village, Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District and pass such other order or orders as the Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

HISTORY:

3. Before adverting to the averments in the present Writ Petition, it is necessary to note the previous history in this case. The Writ Petitioner herein filed O.S.No.561 of 2005 on the file of IVth Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry. The Suit is filed for Declaration of Title of the Writ Petitioner (Plaintiff) over the Plaint Schedule Property by way of Adverse Possession and consequential relief of Perpetual Injunction against the Defendants therein. The Defendants therein are Grama Panchayat, Chinakondepudi, Represented by its Secretary (D1); The M.R.O., Seethanagaram (D2); and, The District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada (D3). The said Defendants are Respondent Nos.4, 3 and 2 respectively in this Writ Petition.

4. The following Issues were framed by the Ld.

Trial Judge:

I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Declaration as prayed for ?

II) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the consequential Relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ?

III) To what relief ?

Additional Issue No.I:

Whether the Court has pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit ?

5. The IVth Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, was pleased to dismiss the O.S.No.361 of 2005 by Judgment & Decree dated 29.04.2014. Insofar as the Issue No.1 is concerned which assumes paramount importance in the present proceedings, the Trial Court, after threadbare evaluation of facts and evidence, categorically held as under:

“Upon perusing the entire evidence, I am of the opinion that what all the oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff is proved to be un-trustworthy. Further the non-examination of plaintiff and non-issuance of notice under Section 138-A of Gram Panchayat Act is fatal to the case of the plaintiff. It is settled law that the plaintiff is not entitled to declaration on the basis of adverse possession because such a plea is available only to the defendant, since the plaintiff is not a lawful owner of the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the relief of declaration by way of adverse possession against the defendants. Therefore, issue no.1 is answered against the plaintiff.

6. It is also significant to note that the Trial Court has also negatived all the other issues including the Additional Issue against the Plaintiff who is also the Writ Petitioner herein.

7. The Writ Petitioner (Plaintiff) had filed an Appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree of dismissal by way of an Appeal bearing A.S.No.40 2014. It transpires from the record that the said Appeal was dismissed for default by the Court of Vth Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, Rajamahendravaram by Order dated 05.12.2016. The Writ Petitioner (Plaintiff) filed Application bearing I