APHC010470692021 2025:APHC:63106 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS SECOND APPEAL NO: 130/2002 Between:

1. S TATE OF A.P.DIST.COLLECTOR EG DIST&2ORS, -

...APPELLANT AND B NARASIMHA MURTHY, -

...RESPONDENT Appeal under section ___________ against judgment and decree dated 27.07.2001 in A.S.No.178 of 1996 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry.

Counsel for the Appellants:

GP FOR ARBITRATION Counsel for the Respondent:

V V NARASIMHA RAO The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

This second appeal under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.178 of 1996 dated 27.07.2001 on the file of the Court of learned II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (hereinafter referred to as “first Appellate Court”).

2. The respondent/plaintiff herein instituted the suit in O.S.No.1112 of 1989 before the Court of learned I Additional District Munsif at Rajahmundry (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land by the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

3. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings.

4. The case of the respondent/plaintiff in brief in the plaint was as follows:

i). The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 25.07.1989 obtained from one Miriyala Varalakshmi, who acquired title by virtue of sale deed dated 25.06.1988 from one Pothabathula Ramarao and others, thereby, himself (plaintiff) and his predecessors are always been in possession and enjoyment of the same with absolute right and title.

ii). The defendants/appellants interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property without initiating any proceedings. No notice was served disclosing the intention of the defendants to occupy any portion of the schedule land. Three days prior to the suit, the Government Surveyor took the measurements of the schedule land in the absence of the plaintiff and then he came to know that the defendants are proposed to occupy the portion of the suit land without assigning any reason and they tried to dispose the plaintiff forcibly. Thereby, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit without issuing a notice under Section 80 of C.P.C.

Hence, the suit.

5. The respondent No.3/defendant No.3 denying all the allegations in the plaint and contending in the written statement, which was adopted by the respondent Nos.1 and

2/defendant Nos.1 and 2 by filing memo, as follows:

i). The land in Survey No.186 measuring Ac.9.36 cents as against the total extent of Ac.13.80 cents which was originally notified has been only acquired under Notation Survey No.186/2 leaving an extent of Ac.4.48 cents. The land acquired by the Government belongs to four persons. The plaintiff purchased the acquired land in 1989 from his vendor, who acquired it only in the yar 1988 and these transactions have nothing to do with them, since the Government has already acquired and took possession and created a title in 1986 itself. Thereby, the plaintiff cannot be claimed as owner of the said property, and he did not raise any objection before the land acquisition officer while the land acquisition proceedings were going on, and Award was already prepared.

ii). The land acquisition proceedings were started in 1985, and the award was passed on 04.02.1986 and the notice of award was duly made to the rightful owner under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the lands were taken possession on 22.03.1986 an