The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State failed to prove the location of the disputed property and that the respondents were the rightful owners based on the supplementary sethwar and subsequent orders and judgments. The court also emphasized that the State and its instrumentalities were not permitted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land by the respondents.

A. R. LAKSHMANAN, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted. This case has a chequered history. This is the sixth in series of litigation between the State of A. P. and the respondents herein. Both parties are in the legal battle field fighting for the five decades. The facts leading to filing of these appeals by the State are tell tale. They are required to be noticed in detail. The lis between the State of A. P. and the respondents centers around a piece of land admeasuring acres 3-27 guntas situated in Khairatabad village in Hyderabad District. As rightly pointed out by the High Court the dispute that began prior to Hyderabad State attained its freedom still awaits its final resolution. Brief facts are as follows:-

( 2 ) SURVEY No. 116 of Khairatabad village is admeasuring 55 acres classified as poramboke sarkari Government land. Prior to sub-division conducted in favour of Smt. Prameela Modi, four nos. were sub-divided and assigned survey nos. : sy. No. Extent (Areas)116/2 Ac. 6. 01 gts Raja Ram Dev116/3 Ac. 5. 00 gts Moulvi Farhatullah116/4 Ac. 7. 35 gts Pingali Venkat Ram Reddy116/5 Ac. 6. 35 gts Rama Krishna Reddy

( 3 ) IN view of the discrepancy in the survey nos. Smt. Prameela Modi approached the Sarfekhas Authorities for resolution of the dispute and after due enquiry, the matter was finally resolved by issuance of a supplementary sethwar in 1357 Fasli (1947) by which 3 acres of 27 guntas out of survey No. 116 was directed to be entered in the name of Smt. Prameela Modi and a map was also issued by the Superintendent of Survey to effect necessary entries in the survey records (Ex. B5 and B6 ). When the sub-division work was carried out and supplementary sethwar was issued in favour of Smt. Prameela Modi, the survey nos. assigned to her land was also 116/2 and 116/3. During the course of mutation in revenue records to overcome the discrepancy which has crept due to ignorance of the mutation of sub-division earlier assigned for Smt. Prameela Modi, the land was assigned survey Nos. 116/2 and 116/3. The same entries of pahani followed in town survey records which are marked as Ex. B-19, 20 and 21 and a town survey extract of the year 1994 is marked as Exh. B-28. The Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records, Andhra Pradesh in his proceedings bearing No. Ref. F1- 18556/64 dated 29. 05. 1964 had framed an issue as to where exactly this land is located with reference to the maps now available. The said issue was answered by the Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records in the above referred proceedings which is extracted hereunder:

"the next question is with regard to the location of this number. Here again it was found that both the land record Officer as well as the petitioner Mrs. C. L. Modi are agreed upon the general location of this land, according to the revision survey map. According to both of them, this land is located along the line with the tank on the south and the road leading up to the Rock Castle Hotel on the eastern side. There is also therefore, no dispute as far as the second issue is concerned. The Board of Revenue upheld the said orders by judgment dated 24. 04. 1965 in Appealu2/1237/64. "

( 4 ) THE Gazette Notification of the Town Survey Record showing Blocks A-N in Ward No. 89 as Government land whereas the implementation of the order of the High Court in WP M. P. No. 6897 which is marked as Ex. B-36 was 28. 08. 1975 which was subsequent to Ex. A-1 on the basis of the entries in the town survey proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act were initiated on 16. 11. 19991 against Smt. Prameela Modi which were set aside on 28. 08. 1993 by the Joint Collector stating that the land belongs to Smt. Prameela Modi and that she is not an encroacher. The Joint Collector referred to the history of the case in this order. The Joint Collector directed Smt. Prameela Modi to approach the Collector for correction of revenue records including TSLR, which was ordered by the Commissioner, Survey Settlement on a reference by the D