Claimants must demonstrate peaceful, open, and continuous possession for over 30 years to establish rights via adverse possession against true owners.

JUDGMENT:

This appeal suit is filed against the Judgment and decree dated 29.10.2010 in O.S.No.848 of 2002, passed by the learned V – Additional Senior Civil Judge, R.R.District.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit vide O.S.No.848 of 2002 against the appellant/defendant for declaration and perpetual injunction regarding the land in Sy.No.8 admeasuring Acs.15 – 12 gts, situated at Himyathsagar, Rajendranagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The trial Court got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A59 on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendant got examined D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B18 on his behalf. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, defendant therein preferred the present appeal.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that the trial Court erred in decreeing the suit stating that respondents/defendants are the owners and are in possession of the suit schedule property, without any evidence for such declaration and also contended that trial Court failed to see the penalty imposed under Section 3 of the Land Encroachment Act for illegal possession by one Mallappa i.e., grandfather of respondents No.1 and 5. The trial Court failed to see that the subject land was a Government land as per Khasra pahani prepared during the year 1954-55, in which the said land was mentioned as Sarkari Poramboke. He further contended that the trial Court failed to see that injunction cannot be granted to an illegal possessor. The trial Court failed to see that amount paid to the respondents for the acquisition of land made for the purpose of laying outer ring road was only Exgratia to the encroachers, but not compensation. The possession of the respondents/plaintiffs was unauthorized and illegal and they failed to prove that they are in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

4. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

5. The parties herein are referred as plaintiffs and defendant as arrayed in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

6. Originally, one Mallappa/grand-father of the plaintiffs No.1 and 5 acquired the land bearing Sy.No.8, admeasuring Acs.15 – 12 gts, situated at Himayathsagar Village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for more than 70 years and enjoyed the possession of the property during his lifetime and he died in the year 1981 leaving the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. He is the grand-father of plaintiffs No.1 and 5, great grand- father of plaintiffs No.3 and father-in-law of plaintiff No.2 and thus they derived right of ownership and possession through succession and continuing enjoying the suit schedule property. The ancestor of the plaintiffs acquired the suit lands more than 70 years back and had been enjoying the same by making them cultivable by spending huge sums and he was also paying the land revenue to the Government and thus he became the owner of the suit lands during his life time and after his demise plaintiffs are enjoying the property as owners. At the time of construction of Himayathnagar Tank, many lands of Ryots of Himayathsagar village have been sub-merged and the new village of Himayathsagar has been established to rehabilitate the ryots of the village, they were allotted Government land and allowed to cultivate them at free of cost under the then Government scheme and policy. The ryots of the village occupied different lands and began to cultivate the same under the said scheme and the ancestor of the plaintiffs M.Mallappa had acqui