The High Court · 2025

Judgment

(Per Hon'ble Sri Juslice Vakiti Rumakrishna Re&ly) This Appeal Suit is filed by the appellant/defendant against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.04.2007 in O.S. No. 3 of 2004 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff against the delendant to grant damages for iltegal demolition of the structures was dccreed in favour of the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court. I. BRIEF FACTS:

3. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.3 of 2004 against the defendants seeking damages for illegal demolition of structures raised by the plaintiffs and also for damages for defamation, professional loss caused to the plaintiffs and exemplary and punitive damages. The brief averments ofthe plaint are as under: ./ '/ a) The plaintiffs being leading medical practitic ners of .lagtial Town and who are having ultra-modem facilities ar C ultra_modem equipments, had intended to construct a decent Nurs r g Home in the Town at an estimated cost of Rs.60,00,000/_. Thus the plaintifls acquired Ac.0-08 guntas of land in Sy.No.465 ot Uothe Vilage bearing Municipal NoJ-6-223 and 7-6-224 within the r: unicipal limits of Jagtial having purchased it fi.om its owners, I)ar rapuneni llavi Kumar and Dannapuneni Sridhar Rao under regist()r :d documents bearing Nos.646 and 647 of 1995, after veriffing their title. The said property is within the municipal limits since 1946 and rt: municiparity has been collecting taxes since 1953 fiom the lav.rl owners ol Sy.No.465. The Municipality (Defendant No. I l) granrer pennission ro the vendors of the plaintiffs to raise compound wall on ,_2_ 1995. The District collector, Karimnagar (Defendant No.2) in hir order dated

11.07.1967, after perusing the report of the Tahsildar lagtial, dated 13-9-1965 permitted construction of a Cinema Theater I Sy.No.465. In a suit in O.S.No. 17 of 1992, which was filed for part rion berween the private parties, the land in Sy.No.465, was shown tc be a private land and a preliminary decree for partition was also p:;sed therein. 3 After purchasing Ac.0-08 guntas of land, the plaintiffs applied to the Municipality, Jagtial seeking permission to construct a Nursing Home. b) On a misleading report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, initiated proceedings on 15.02.1995 and accordingly issued notices on I 6.02. 1995 assuming the land in suit Survey Number to be Temple Inam land and required the occupants of the said Survey Number to show cause as to why they should not be evicted. Though he issued notices to one D. Jagga Rao and Y. Laxmi Raji Reddy, who died about 20 years back, deliberately avoided to serve notices on the Inamdars and real owners and so also on the Municipality. In fact, the land in question is not inam land but patta land. Since the Municipality failed to accord permission inspite of

lapse of statutory period, the plaintiffs filed O.S. No.37 of 1995 in Sub Court, Jagtial and though the Govemment is not a party to the suit, the Govemment Officials directed the Assistant Covemment Pleader to assist the Standing Counsel of the Municipatity. Since the Municipality, Jagtial promised the plaintiffs to accord permission, the plaintiffs had withdrawn the suit and the Municipal Council passed a resolution directing the Commissioner to accord permission to the plaintiffs, but the Commissioner failed to do so. The plaintiffs neither 4 received permission nor any order rejecting their applic rtion fiom the Municipality, Jagtial and as such, they proceeded with t e construction under deemed permission as envisaged under Section : l5 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965. c) When the Sub Collector (Revenue Divisional () hcer), Jagtial, was infringing the rights of the plaintiffs, they approact':d the District Collector and the District Collector directed the Sub-('t'l ector to act in accordance with law. On the false and frivolous petiti() rs filed by Sri A. Ravinder Reddy and D. Athma Charan Rao in a 'Rei :nue Sadassu' held at Gollapalli in the presence of the Hon'ble Rer :nue Minister complaining that the plaintiffs were raising illegal const uctions in the inam lands, the District Collector issued orders on 20-() - 1997 to stop the work. However, the Sub-Collector, in his order, dat, d 2l-01-1997 addressed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jagtial and tht' Sub-lnspector of Police and the Municipality, Jagtial to stop the constrr ction over the sult plot. The Mandal Revenue Officer and the lommissioner suddenly appeared with police force and labourers and tarted pulling down the centering material and caused partial derr rlition to the structures on22-l-1997 and fully demolished on 25-l 997 and filed false criminal cornplaint against the plaintiff No. I an,l his friend by 5 name Dr- Mohan Reddy for the offences punishable u/s 447 and 353 IPC. The Sub-Collector and the Mandal Revenue Officer acted high- handedly in causing demolition of the structures raised by the plaintiffs and in doing so, they exceeded their statutory functions and powers and they abused the powers vested in them and also promulgated Sec. 144 of Cr. PC. and deployed C.R.P.F. force. d) The Sub Collector, Jagtial also got circulated leaflets in the town defaming the plaintiffs. Dr. Mohan Reddy and others filed O.S.No.27 of 1997 against the Municipal Commissioner (Defendant No.l 1) for injunction in respect of some other piece of land in same Survey Number. The plaintiffs also filed a Writ Petition No.2448l1997 before this Court, claiming damages, but this Court directed them to approach the Civil Court. The plaintiffs also addressed a letter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice who endorsed the same to A.P. State Legal Services Authority and the said Authority required the District Collector to take further action in the matter. However, no action was taken by the District Collector. The plaintiffs issued notices under Section 80 CPC to the Govemment Officials who are sued in this case. Since the plaintiffs did not receive any reply, they filed this suit 6

4. Defendants No.2 to 9 filed a Written Staterr :nt denying the allegations made in the plaint, the brief averments rf which are as under: a) The Officers in their personal capacity are ul lecessarily sued since what they did in this case is only in dischargirr , of their duties- Sy. No.465 is Inam Khairathi and, therefore, the plea of the plaintiffs that it is a patta land belonging to their vendors is not correct. Most of the lands in the said Survey Number is covere t by permanent residential houses. When the Govemment initiated rt tion for vesting Sy.No.465 in Govemment, none of the owners of the I ouses were able to prove that the houses were existing prior to 1955. t rc mere fact that the Municipality was providing civic amenities ar C was granting permission to several persons to construct houses in iy.No.465, does not change the nature of the land from that of inam t r the patta. When the Sub Collector, Jagtial (Defendant No.6) was er luiring into the nature of the [and, D. Raja Gopal Rao and others i c cepted that it is khairathi inam land and Anantha Krishnama Ch uyulu was the Inamdar and also represented that during the life tirrt of the tather of D. Raja Gopal Rao, Defendant No.2 granted permissic r for conversion o1'the land for non-agricultural purpose to construct I linetna Theater, 7 but they did not produce any evidence and, therefore, D-6 issued proceedings on 2-2-1996 vesting the land in the Govemment. The fact that the property changed hands to hands and that some private parties instituted O.S.No. l7 of 1982 for partition, which was decreed, is not in the knowledge of the Govemment and even otherwise, the said decree does not cease the nature of the land to be that of inam land. The plaintiffs applying to Municipality seeking permission to construct a Nursing Home is not within the knowledge of these defendants. b) Sy.No.465 is khairathi inam land and Sri Anantha Krishnama Chary was recorded as Inamdar and as per the provisions of lnams Abolition Act, all inams were abolished with effect from 20.07.1955 and the lands were vested in the Govemment and, therefore, it is a Government land. The land is existing in municipal limits of Jagtial and in commercial locality. On receipt of complaints by Defendant No.S that some persons have illegally occupied the land, he enquired into the matter and submitted a report to the District Collector according to which the Inamdars leased out the entire land to eight persons and on the spot only Ac.0-23 gts. of land is lying vacant and the remaining part is occupied by houses. Therefore, notices were issued to Allala Laxmiraj i Reddy and D. Jagga Rao and the said 4 8 notices were served on their sons requiring them to s[ ow cause as to why the Govemment shall not resume the land. Defcr dant No.8 also informed Deftndant No. I I not to grant any I ermission for construction ol- houses in the said Ac.0-23 gts. c I land and the claimants subm itted a reply that the land was lease I out to eight persons, namely, Dhannapaneni Malhal Rao, S/o Ven < (rao, Punugoti Kishan Rao, S/o Jalapathi Rao, Somasetti Raghav:rder Rao, S/o Kistaiah, Maduganti Narayana Reddy, S/o Mallaiah. S rgi Venkatrao, S/o Rajaiah, Vangapalli Rajeshwar Rao, S/o Bhee r aiah, Musuku Rajeshwar Reddy, S/o Yellaiah and Yellala Raji Recr y', S/o Venkat Reddy. c) The entirc land in this survey number was sold a r ay to different persons by the lessees and the purchasers have rair ed permanent structures and on the spot only Ac.0-23 gts. of land rvr lying vacant They also stated that the lease was executed on 2-5-195 . As per Sec.2 (h) of the lnams Abolition Act, a lease transaction war made prior to 10-6- 1950 was alone valid and saved and as the I r Lse deed was executed on 2-5-1951, it is invatid, inoperative, illegal I rd is violative of the law. Theretbre, the transfers made by various pels rns basing on the above invalid lease deed are equally invalid r rd, therefore, 9 Defendant No.6 passed order, dt.02.02.1996 vesting the land in the Govemment and as such, the transaction entered into by the plaintiffs is null and void and is bereft of title in the vendors d) The entry in the pahanies that the suit survey number is a patta land is only a clerical mistake and it will not confer any right on the plaintiffs to claim that it is a private patta land. The mutations sanctioned, permissions granted are all illegal. The Municipality did not grant any permission in favour of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are also not in lawful possession of the suit land. After considering the representations of the legal heirs of Y. Laxmiraji Reddy and D. Jagga Rao, the Revenue Divisional Officer passed order, dt.2-2-1996 vesting Sy.No.465 in the Government and the above legal heirs filed appeals and they were also dismissed. The fact that the Asst. Govt. Pleader was directed to assist the Standing Counsel of Municipality in the litigation of O.S. No.31 of 1995 is admitted. It is a fact that in the Revenue Sadassu a complaint was lodged before the Revenue Minister that the plaintiffs are in illegal occupation of the Government land and were raising illegal structures. Since the plaintiffs have been proceeding with itlegal construction, the Defendant No,6, directed the Defendant No.8, to stop the same as the land was vested in the Govemment by 10 virtue of the Order, dt.2-2-1996. When the Defendant l'o.8 proceeded to the spot, the plaintiff No.l indulged in criminal tresJ)i ss with the aid and help of Dr. Mohan Reddy, who is a Govemmer . Servant, and others and threatened the Defendant No.8 with dire co.r ,equences and, therefore, he filed a complaint before the police, Jag.ial. Since the plaintiffs ill-treated and misbehaved with Defendant N: 8, the revenue staff went on strike. Delendant Nos.6 and 8 in crr rying out the demolition, acted according to law and, therefore, .l ey cannot be personally made liable. In pursuance of the Order, dt. C 2.02.1996, the Mandal Revenue Inspector resumed the land on 06.1|.1996 and as such, the ptaintiffs are not in possession thereof. The iling of Writs and the fact that the State Legal Services Authoritl addressed the District Collector is admitted and it is stated that the I)rr lrict Collector sent a reply to the Legal Services Authority. d) On I l-12-1996, Delendant No.S convened a m:.ting with the municipal and police officials including press report, rs and made known the public that Sy.No.465 is a Govemment lanc n response to which the plaintift No.l published a pamphlet challel;ing to prove that it is a Govemment land and announced a cash gift , I'Rs.50,000/- to those who prove that it is a Govemment [an, . When the 71 as 147 2004 Govemment Officials were busy in 'Janma Bhoomi' Programme, the plaintiffs proceeded with the construction by criminally trespassing into the land which is vested in the Govemment. The ill intention and abuse of powers attributed to Defendant Nos.6 and 8 is denied. The plaintiff No. I made an attempt to commit suicide giving a colour that the revenue officials had harassed him. The demolition is in accordance with law and as such, the plaintiffs cannot claim any damages

5. Defendant No. I filed a memo adopting the Written Statement of Defendant Nos.2 to 9.

6. The Defendant No.10, the then Chairman of the Municipal Council, filed a Written Statement admitting that the Municipality is collecting house taxes in respect of the houses located in the suit survey number, and that it was also granting permissions for raising construction in the said survey number. It is also admitted that the Municipality granted permission in favour of the vendors of the plaintiff to raise compound wall in the suit land. The Municipality is aware of the proposed construction of Cinema Theater about thirty years back, but in the said land a building came up wherein the State 12 Bank of Hyderabad, Jagtial Branch is functioning. 1'ht Municipality has no concern with O.S. No. 17 of 1982 in respect of Sr No.465' It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs filed O.S. No.37 of l() 15 and that it was. withdrawn on the promise o[ Municipal Couo :il to grant permission. It is atso admitted that the Municipal CorLr cil passed a resolution unanimously on I 3.03. t 996 and directed t I : Municipal Commissioner to accord required pennission to the pl I ntiffs as the land in question is private and patta land as per the pahan es issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jagtial and many building permissions were granted to number of persons in Sy. No.465 since af er formation of the Municipality. The Municipality did not indutge i r acts which resulted in damage to the persons and properties of the pla ntifls and as such, the suit as against Defendant No.l0 has no basis.

7. The Defendant Nos. I I and 12 filed separate Wrine r Statements admitting that the plaintiffs are leading Medical Practition :rs of Jagtial town and the application made by plaintiffs for permissicr to construct a Nursing Home. It is also admitted that the Municipi I Council collecting taxes and is also granting permissions to raise ' onstructions in the suit survey number. As the revenue officials illormed the Municipality that thc suit land is inam land, the Municip rlity refused 13 construction permission to the plaintiffs. It is a fact that O'S.No.3 I of 1995 was filed against the Municipality. Defendant Nos.ll and 12 further stated that they have no knowledge as to why the plaintiffs had withdrawn it. The fact that the Municipal Council passed resolution granting permission on 30-3-1996 is denied. The entire acts of Defendant Nos.l I and 12 were in accordance with the Municipalities Act, 1965 and as such, they are saved. The Municipality or its staff did not indulge or participate in the demolition work and as such, no action Iies against them. The Defendant Nos.l I and l2 ultimately prayed for the dismissal of the suit as against them. II. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIAL COT]RT: 8 Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court fiamed the following issues for trial: I ll. l11. Whether the Sy. No.465 of Mothe Shivar within the limits of Jagtial Municipality is a government land or not? Whether the ptaintiffs are owners and are in possession and enjoyment of Sy. No.465 of Mothe Shivar? Whether the suit is maintainable against D-3, D-5, D-7, D-9 and D- I I in their personal capacity? Whether the defendants No.3, 5,7,9 and 11 demolished the structures raised in the suit Sy. No.465 of Mothe Shivar, in their official capacity or individual capacity? t t4 Whether the defendant No.l is a necessary anc )roper party to the suit? Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim rl mages against defendants No. I to 12 as PraYed for? v[. To what reliefl EVIDENCEON RECORD: III. g. During the course of trial, the plaintiff No'l rv ts examined as pW.l and marked Exs A-1 to A-52 on his behall. tlr behalf of the defendants, the Mandal Revenue Ofhcer, Jagtial rr I s examined as DW.l, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, Jagtial 'r rs examined as DW.2, the Mandal Revenue Officer' Jagtial at the rele rant time when the incident of demolition had occurred was examine I as DW 3' the Sub Collector, Jagtiat at the relevant time was examirt d as DW 4 and the District Collector, Karimnagar at the relevant ti1 e as DW5 and marked Exs.B I to B43 were marked on their behalf' FINDINGS OF THE TRIA L COURT: IV. 10. Upon consideration of the rival contentions' the 'frial Couft' by judgment and decree dated 04.04.2007, decreed the : "rit in favour of the Plaintiff. The Court awarded an amount o1' Its'16''82'125/-' inctuding Rs.5,00,000/- lor professional loss and F s' 2'00'000 for 15 mental agony in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendant Nos.1, 2, 4,6 and 8 were held liable for the amount with 6% interest per annum. The suit against Defendant Nos. 10 to 12 was dismissed, while Defendant Nos.3, 5, 7 and 9 were exempted from the decree but liberty was granted to the govemment to enquire into their personal involvement and recover the amount from them if it finds that they had exceeded their authoritv. I l. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants preferred the present Appeal Suit to set aside the impugned judgment and decree. V. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES: A) Submissions on behalf of the appellanUdefendant:

12. The leamed Counsel for the appellant/defendants submits that the Impugned Judgment is fundamentally flawed as it contradicts the law and the presented evidence. The Triat Court viewed the case from an entirely incorrect perspective, misinterpreting both the facts and the applicable legal principles. A central procedural failure was that the Chief Secretary was improperly impleaded as a defendant, while the necessary party, the State, was not impleaded. Consequently, the suit is not maintainable because it failed to follow the mandatory procedural 16 requirements of Sections 79 and 80 of the Civil t 'ocedure Code (CPC), which govem the suits against the govemt n rnt and public officiats. The Trial Court should have rejected the suit i r liminie as the delendants were impleaded in their individual capat i ies and not as representatives of the State, or dismissed the suit due to mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. It ouE rt to have held that Survey No. 465 of Mote village within Jagtil'r I Mandal was Govemment land and not private patta land. Further he Trial Court lailed to see that the suit land was held as "lnanr Khairathi" by Nandyala Ananta Krishnamachary, and further by vir ue of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Inam Abolition Act, 1955 (hereinafit r referred to as 'the Act'), the suit land vested with the Government, rv th no evidence of pre-existing residential houses.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendz r t submits that Trial Court also failed to appreciate that despite pen I ssions such as for construction of a cinema hall in 1967, neither such 1 crmissions nor subsequent unauthorized leases gave any transle able title to purchasers. The M:R.O and Sub Collector had nitiated valid proceedings in 1995-96, including issuing notice: to occupants, imposing restrictions on new constructions,, and ultil I ltel)' resuming 77 thelandtotheGovernment.Leasesafterlg5landsubsequent alienations were invalid under section 2(h) of the Act, making all plaintiff transactions void. Even though plaintilfs were aware of these proceedings, they refiained fiom asserting their claims then, thereby forfeiting rights. The court below did not uphold these findings' ignored the official orders and notices served on heirs of original occupants, and failed to recognize that deemed municipal permission cannot override the vesting of title in the Govemment'

14. The leamed counsel for the appeltant/det-endant submits that the court erred in ignoring official directions that prohibited construction, police intervention against plaintiffs' resistance, and even criminal proceedings arising from their obstruction of tawfut authority' The plaintiffs had earlier withdrawn suits and writ petitions while simultaneouslyfilingfalserepresentations,resisteddemolition'and engaged in illegal acts of construction and trespass during "Janma Bhoomi" programs. Despite these clear acts, the court wrongly awarded Rs. 16,82, I 25l- as damages without proper legal basis' disregarding that the writ petitions were dismissed at admission stage and that govemment officers acted within the scope of their statutory duties. The suit ought to have been dismissed entirely' including -_ . ..1 , ":t!ll .' '' -.- 18 against official respondents, yet the decree issued wrr both unlawful and unsupported by evidence. The "Memo of Valua ion" reflects a claim of Rs. 26,,74,278l- with 60lo interest, but the (iovernment is exempt lrom court fees by law, reinforcing why the de:ree against the defendants cannot stand. B) Submissions on behalf of the respo ndent/olain iff: I 5. The leamed counsel for the respondent/ptaintifl ubmits that the suit schedule property is not an inam land and that it is a patta land. It is ftlrther submitted that though several constructior i were already existing in Sy.No.465, the defendants demolished onl 'the structures raised by the plaintiffs and leaving aside the remainrt g structures in the said survel' number. The plaintiffs issued notices r rder Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the govemment cl icials who are sued in the suit and as they did not respond, the claintiffs were constrained to file the suit. The suit schedule prope - y is within the municipal limits since 1946 and the municipality has reen collecting taxes since 1953 from the lawful owners of land in Sy \ o.465

16. It is further contended that defendant No.l1 gn r ted permission to the vendors of the plaintiffs to raise compound walL :n 06.02.1995 19 AS 107 2(na The defendant No.2 in his order dated I 1.07.1967 in pursuance of the report of Tahsildar, Jagital dated 13.09. I 967 permitted for construction of a cinema theatre in Sy.No.465. It is further submitted that in O.S.No.17 of 1982 a suit for partition between the private parties, the land in Sy.No.465 was shown to be a private land and a partition decree was passed thereby. Though the defendants alleged to have issued notices, the said notices were served to one D. Jagga Rao and Y. Laxmi Raji Reddy, who died about 20 years back and deliberately avoided to serve notices on the persons, who are interested in the subject land. Since the municipality failed to accord permission inspite of lapse of statutory period, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.37 of 1995 before the Sub-Court, Jagital. Though the government is not a party to the said suit, the govemment officials directed the Assistant Govemment Pleader to assist the Standing Counsel for the Municipality. Since the municipality, Jagtial, promised the plaintiffs to accord permission, the plaintiffs had withdrawn the suit and the Municipal Council passed a resolution directing the Commissioner to accord permission to the plaintiffs but he failed to do so. It is further argued that the plaintiffs filed W.P.No.244811997 claiming damages but the plaintiffs were directed to approach Civil Court 20 VI. THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION: 1l . Now the point for determination is: Whether there are any grounds to set al,i le the impugned judgment dated 04.04.2007 passed in O.S. No. 3 rl1 1004 on the hle of II Additionat District Judge, Karimnagar? VII. A1\{ALYSIS

18. One of the prime contentions of the defendar ts is that the suit schedule property is a Govemment land and not a latta land and that leases dated 195 I and subsequent alienations r,' 're invalid under Section 2(h) of the Act, making all the transaction void. l'hus, the crucial question that needs to be adjudicated i:, rvhether the suit schedule property is a govemment land or patta lant The Trial Court observed at Paragraph No.20 of the impugned jtrcl ment that Khasra Pahani under Ex.B I I discloses that Anantha Kri:J nama Chary was shown as pattadar and one B. Malhal Rao is sl r wn as possessor. Exs.Al2 i.e., pahanies for the years from 1973-191.l o 1990-1991 also reflects the name of Anantha Krishnama Chary as rattadar. It is also to be noted that DW3, who was examined as PW(, in C.C.No.198 of 1997, specifically admitted that Sy.No.465 is the par I land of Anantha Krishnama Chary and till 1998 the suit land is shr,'.'n to be his patta 2l land in the revenue records. Thus, it is clear that the suit schedule property is a patta land. Once the suit schedule property is considered as patta land, the provisions of A.P. (Telangana Area) Inam Abolition Act, 1955, are not applicable to the facts ofthe case on hand.

19. As per the evidence of DW3, by the time of his inspection of the suit schedule property, there were several constnrctions raised in the suit survey number. The only explanation offered by DW3 for not taking any action against the constructions raised in the suit survey number is that they have not noticed those constructions, which is appearing to be strange and unbelievable.

20. It is the specific contention of the plaintiffs that the ptaintiff Nos.l and 2 purchased the suit land in two bits by virtue of Exs.AI and .A2 from Dannepuneni Sridhar Rao and Dannepuneni Ravi Kumar and obtained possession. As per the evidence of DWI in the Report (E,xs.B4O and B14) submitted by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Jagtial, it was mentioned that there were structures in the suit survey number and on the report of Mandal Revenue Officer and the Revenue Divisional Officer, the District Collector accorded permission in the year 1967 in favour of one Malhal Rao for construction of a Cinema 22 Theatre in the suit survey number. The original rattadar by name Anantha Krishnama Chary having executed l: r.A38 registered permanent lease deed created permanent lease in Ilour of B Malhat Rao and put him in possession and the said Mallr I Rao enjoyed it during his lifetime and his son Rajagopal Rao by e < :cuting registered gift deeds under Exs.A39 and A40 gifted Ac.0-13 6r ntas ofland each in f-avour of Dannapaneni Sridhar Rao. The plaint 1is after verifuing the title, purchased Ac.0-08 guntas of land under rxs.Al and A-2 S ince Anantha Krishnama Chary, the predecessor .' predecessor IS found to be the pattadar and as the vendors of tlLr plaintiffs under Exs.AI and A.2 have marketable titte, it can be helc hat the plaintiffs are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideratior Coming to the documentary evidence, Ex.Bl0 is the Sethwar and ac:ording to it, Sy No.465 is inam patta land of Anantha Krishnama Ct ary. Ex.B I l, the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55, which is the : 'trcial document, shows that Anantha Krishnama Chary is the pattadz r and one Malhal Rao is shown as lessee. In the Inam Takhtha (Ii .B l2), Anantha Krishnama Chary is shown as pattadar. A perusa of llxs.Bl3 and A38, dt:2-5-195 I discloses that Anantha Krishnama lhary being the pattadar of Sy. No.465 had made permanent aliene ion of Ac.3-05 23 guntas of land in Sy. No.465 in favour of D. Malhal Rao for a sum of Rs.12,000/- under registered document. It is the specific contention of the defendants that the pahanies showing that the subject land is patta land came into existence due to mistake. But admittedly no steps were initiated by the defendants to rectiry those alleged mistakes. In the absence of any steps to recti$ the alleged mistakes crept in the revenue records, it is presumed that the entries in the revenue records are true and correct. Moreover, the plaintiffs are claiming title and possession over the suit scheduled property and there is no record to show that those alleged sale deeds were challenged before the competent court by any of the defendants. 2l . DW2 admitted that there are several other constructions in Sy. No.465, and that none of the structures, except the construction raised by the plaintiffs, were demolished. DW3, who was the Mandal Revenue Officer at the relevant point of time, admitted that as per Ex.Al2. Sy No.465 is the patta land, and that in Ex.Bl4 and 840 he included the names of two dead persons, namely, E. Jagga Rao and Laxmi Raji Reddy as the persons in occupation. ,) 24

22. As can be seen from the record, one Sri R. Sriritr rulu, Advocate made a complaint alleging that transactions are going o take place in Sy. No.465 which is the Govemment land and ort that the Sub- Collector sought report of the Mandal Revenue Officcr', who submitted his report on 09-02-1995 under Exs.B-I4 and B-'1r) wherein it is averred that as per Setwar, in respect of an extent o1 \c'3-05 gts' of land in Sy. No.465, Sarnudrala Krishnama Chary is s rown pattadar, and that in Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 he is sh' 'wn as pattadar (khairat inam), and that in the pahani for the year l()' 0-91, Anantha Krishnama Chary is shown as pattadar of the said k r d. It is further stated therein that in Survey No.465, in the total extent :f Ac.3-05 gts, there are pelrnanent residential houses except Ac.0-2I gts. of open land, and that the building in which State Bank of L[' ' erabad, Jagtial Branch is functioning, is also located in the said suit surey number'

23. Admittedly, when the plaintifls applied for rermission for construction, the Municipality, Jagtial, informed thal n view of the letter received by it from the Revenue Departmer I the grant of ln abeyance. As 60 days fro r the date of permission was kept application seeking permission had expired, the plair iffs proceeded with the construction and when there was some interlt -ence from the 25 Municipality, the plaintiffs had filed O.S. No.83/1997 on the file of leamed Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial seeking injunction against the Municipality and its employees from interfering. The leamed Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial under Ex.A5l i.e., the Judgment, dt.3-3-2003 had decreed the suit. Ex.A5 1 discloses that the plaintiffs were proceeding with the construction under deemed permission. The leamed Judge also opined that the evidence placed before him established that there were several constructions in Sy. No.465, that Dr. Ganga Reddy and Dr. Mohan Reddy constructed Nursing Homes, that Sy. No.465 is private patta [and, and that Sy. No.465 is treated all along as part of Jagtial Municipatity, and that Jagtial Muncipality was providing all civil amenities to it and maintaining the said survey number and so holding, injuncted Municipality from interference.

24. Ex.A5 is the Proceedings of the Chairman, Municipality, dated 22-01-2OOl according to which, the Municipal Council had discussed about granting of permission to the plaintiffs, and that,it was observed therein that Municipality gave permission to several persons for raising constructions in Sy. No.465; initially permission was granted to construct a Cinema Theatre in the said survey number which subsequently converted into a building tn which State Bank of 26 Hyderabad has been functioning; the municipal recr :ds and revenue records show that the disputed land is a private pari r land and civic amenities being provided to the residents of the builc ngs constructed in Sy. No.465; such permissions were also granted n favour of Dr. Mohan Reddy and ultimately it was resolved to grant 1 ermission to the plaintiffs.

25. As can be seen from the impugned Ju0[ ment, in O.S. No.7lll992, which is filed between two private par.r :s for partition, one of the subject mafters of the suit therein is Sy. l.l r.465 of Mothe Village to the extent o[ l6 guntas l7 yards which is a I o in suit survey number. The said suit was decreed under Ex.Al4. -- rus, the private parties in the said suit, municipality and the Govemr-r :nt records like Khasra Pahani and Pahanies show that all along Sv-.} o.465 is being treated as a private patta land. If at all the land in iy.No.465 is a govemment land, there is no scope for decreein 3 the suit in O.S.No.71l1992. Moreover, there is no record to est blish that said judgment was challenged.

26. The Trial Court rightly observed in the impugne < judgmenr that had the suit land been Govemment land, as cLr imed by the AS lO7 2q)A Govemment in this litigation, the Govemment would not have slept over its rights and would have certainly taken steps to recover it even by demolishing the constructions. It was further observed that the inaction on the part of the Govemment in this regard and its excessive action in demolishing the structures raised by the plaintiffs, who were half way to complete the construction, clearly amounts to discrimination and selective harassment against the plaintiffs. There is no palpable explanation from any of the govemment officials as to why the ptaintiffs were chosen as a soft target while allowing several others including doctors to enjoy their hospitals and houses in the same survey numbers.

27. The Trial Court further observed in the impugned judgment that even assuming without admitting that the suit land is inam land, and that it vested in the Govemment, Anantha Krishnama Chary having asserted his right on 2-5-195 I and having created pe(nanent lease in favour of B Malhal Rao and his descendents and successors continuing possession over the suit land right from 1951 should be deemed to have acquired title by adverse possession. lt is well settled that the plaintiffs even to sustain the plea of adverse possession can tag on the possession of their predecessors and even predecessor's predecessors 28 from the date of vesting 30 years have already elaps,: I and, therefore, even assuming without admitting that Sy. No.465 is a ; overnment land for the reasons stated above, the Govemment have los title to the said land and the plaintiffs shall be deemed to have rr cluired title by adverse possession. Entire record filed in the suit 11' the Revenue Department indicates that the suit land is the inarr land came into exlstence only in the year I 995 after a complair t was made by Sri R. Sriramulu, Advocate to selectively harass the pl'r ntiffs

28. Yet another significant dimension in the present :ase is whether the defendant authorities had adhered to the rule of lr v as prescribed under the relevant statutory fiamework applicable to the factual situation. A perusal of the entire record disclost': that no such procedure or compliance with the rule of law was .r rserved by the authorities before resorting to such a drastic step of clc nolition of the constructions raised by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, as record reveals, had admittedly made a prior application seekirr . construction permission and after waiting for the statutory period, tl r y proceeded to make such constructions by invoking the deemed permission as contemplated under Section 215 of the Andhra Pradesr Municipalities Act, 1965. Even when it were the case of the defendr r ts that the suit 29 land covered by Survey No.465 is a govemment land (which, notably they could not substantiate before the Trial Court), it was incumbent on the part ofthe defendants to invoke the relevant statutory provisions i.e., either under the Land Encroachment Act or any other enabling laws. In either event, whether the land was Govemment property or whether the construction was unauthorized, the defendants are bound to act in accordance with law, follow due procedure before undertaking any demolition.

29. Recently, the Honourable Supreme Court in Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, In Rer while dealing. with a similar issue conceming demotition of buitding/structures either residential or commercial, has issued comprehensive directions prescribing the procedure to be mandatorily followed by the officers/officials of the State while undertaking any activities of demolition. The Honourable Supreme court emphasized that the rule of law and procedural safeguards cannot be sacrificed under any pretext and that no demolition shatl be carried out without prior notice, consideration of objections and a reasonable order. The relevant L(2025) 5 Supreme court cases 1 30 observations made by the Honourable Supreme Court in the above said decision are as under: ,'1.Y. DIRECTIONS

93. ln order to allay the fcars in the minds ol r regard to urbilrury exercise of power by the offce : State, we.lind it necessary lo issue cert(tin directions ,t pov,er under Article I42 of the Constitution. We art thot even q/ier orders of demolition are passed, the a/ie to be given sone time so as to challenge the order oJ' I an appropriatc .[orum. ll/e are further of the yiew th( persons v'ho do not wish to contest the demolilion ord: needs to he given to them to vacate arul arronge theit .t huppy .sighl to see h)omen, chiidren and aged per.xtr.s .streets olarnight Ileavens would not foll on the oulhor their hands.litr some period. 91. .4t tha o tset. ve clarify that these directions wil! t if thera i.s un unuuthorized structure in any public ph t slreet, ftxttputh. uhulling roilwa) line or eny river bod and also to coses where lhere is an order for demo'r Oourl of lutt tL, cilizens with ltfficials of rhe axercise of our ,lso of the view 'ted party needs molition before 'vcn in cases of , suJficient time lairs. h is not a dragged to the ties if they hold r be applit'able : sut h as road, )r y,ater b)dies ion made by a A- NOTI(:E

91.1. No demolition should be canied out without a 1n,<tr show cause notice r(tttrnohla cither in accordance with lhe time I rovided by the locul municipal laws or wilhin l5 days, time from tht, ,t, te of sen,ite of .\uch notiL't . y hichcvcr is later. 91.2. Thc notit'c .shall be served upon the ownc,., tccupier by a registered post A.D. Additionally, the notice shttll , L,;o he afiixed conspicuttu.sly on tha outer portion of the struclure in q t slion. 94.3.. The time ol l5 tlays, stated herein above, sh(tll .sr t t from the dare of receipr of the :;uid nolice. 94-J. To prevent ony allegalion ofbackdating, we dir('( I ,hat os soon ds lhe show cuuse notice is duly served, inlimation thereo/ hall be sent to the fficc of Collector/District Magistrate of the tli:;tr c:t ttigita l, by, email and un oulo generated reply acknowledging rtt t;pt of the mail should al.so be issued from the office of the (1 tleclor/Districr Magistrate '[he ()ollector/DM shall designate q no(lul t fficer and ttlso assign an email address and communicate the same ttt tn lhe municipal und other outhoritic.t in charge of building regulation., tnd clemolirion within one monlh.lrom today. 91.5. The noticc sholl contain lhe details regarding; a. lhe noturt of thc unauthorized conslruction. ./ 31 b. the detoils of the spec!/ic violation and the grounds of demolition. c. a list of documents thqt the noticee is required to furnish along with his reply. d. The notice should also specify the date on which the personal hearing is fixed and the designated authority before whom the hearing will tafu place: 91.6. Every municipctl/local authority shall assign a designated digital portal, within 3 months from today wherein details regarding service/pasting of the notice, the reply, lhe show cause notice and lhe order passed thereon would be available. B. PERSONAL HEARING

94.7. The designated quthority shall give dn opportunity of personal hearing to the person concerned. 91.8. The minutes of such a hearing shall also be recorded. C. FINAL ORDER

94.9. Upon hearing, the designated authority shall pass a final order. 94.10. The final order shall contain: a. the contentions of the nolicee, dnd if the designated outhority disagrees with the same, the reasons thereof; b. as to whether the unauthorized construction is compoundable, d it is not so, the reasons therefor; c. if the designoted authorily finds that only pdrt of the construction is unauthorized/noncompoundable, then the details thereof. d. as to why the extreme step of demolition is the only option available and other options like compounding and demolishing only part of the property are not av*ilable. D. AN OPPORTUNITY OF APPELLATE AND JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF THE FINAL ORDER.

91.11. Ile further direct that if the slalule provides for an appellate opportunity and time for fling lhe same, or even d it does not so, the order will not be implemented for a period of l5 days from the date o.f receipt thereof. The order shall also be displayed on lhe digital portal as stated above.

91. 1 2. An opportunily should be given to lhe owner/occupier to remot e the unauthorized construction or demolish the same within a period of 15 days. Only ofter the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice has expired and the owner/occupier has not removed./demolished the unauthorized construction, and d the sdme is not slayed by any appellate authority or a court, the concerned authority shall take steps to demolish the sarne. It is only such construction whicl, is found to he unauthorized and not compoundable shall be demolishe I

94. 13. Before demolition, a detailed inspection report sn, ll be prepared by the concerned aulllority signed by nao Panchas. E. PROCEEDIN(}S OF DEMOLITION

94. 14. The proceedings of demolition shall be video-g., phed, and the concerned authority shall prepare a demolition report i:, ing the list of police olJicials and civil personnel that participated b he demolilion process. l/ideo recording to be duly preserved.

94. I 5. T'he said demolition report should be forwarded rc the Municipal Commissioner lry, r.o,, aruJ shall also be displayed m the digital portal.

95. Needless to slute that lhe authorities hereinaJfur shall strictly comply with the aJbresaid directions issued by us.

96. It tqill al,so be infitrmed thal violation of any of the ai ections would lead to initiotion of contetnpt proceedings in atl,'ition to the prosecution

97. The ojJicials should also be irlformed that if the den.ttition is found to be in violation of the orders of this Courl, the 'lficer/fficers concerned will be held responsible for restitution of t, e demolished property at his/lheir personal cost in addition to payment tfdamages. "

30. Though the above judgment has been rend€-ed by the Honourable Supreme Court very recently, there exists a catena of judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court and 'z Lrious High Courts reiterating similar principles, underscoring the recessity of strict observance of the rule of law. The consistent jurl cial view is that a show cause notice must precede any proposerl demolition, and that explanation offered by the occupant/owner of I ry building, 33 must be duly considered before passing any final order. Only thereafter, the authorities may proceed to demolish the structures and even then, only in accordance with a speaking and final order of demolition duly communicated to the affected party.

31. It was therefore, obligatory upon the authorities to issue a prior notice and afford an opportunity and explanation before resorting to demolition of the structures. Such observance of the rule of law is a fundamental precondition under both statutory and constitutional frameworks. Any excessive or arbitrary exercise of power by the officials cannot, in law, be sustained.

32. In view of the aforesaid discussion and entire sequences of events establish that the defendant officials failed to follow the rure of law and high handedly demolished the structures raised by the plaintiffs.

33. with regard to non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties to the suit, it is evident that the plaintiffs had not only impleaded the officials in their individual capacities but had also arrayed them. in their official positions, being the persons directly involved in demolition of structures at the relevant point of time. The reason behind this is that \ I 34 the Trial Court while answering issue No.6, decreec. Lhe suit against defendant Nos. l, 2, 4, 6 and 8 and gave liberty to th: Government to recover the said amount from all or any of them ir the event the Govemment feels that they are personally responsibl,: The plaintiffs impleaded the govemment officials not only in l reir individual capacities but also in their official capacities with a ' iew that if the officials are responsible in their individuar capacity t ,e Govemment may recover the amount from the ofrcials in their inc i zidual capacrty so as to reduce the financial burden on the Govemn r nt. It is to be seen that though the plaintiffs have not added the Stat: as party to the suit, they have added the Chief Secretary to Govert nent. Merely because State is not added as one of the defendants it cannot be a ground to set aside the impugned judgment beca se the Chief Secretary, who is authorized representative of the S..z te is made as party to the suit. Thus, white answering issue No.5, t re Trial Court observed that it is not shown as to how Defendant l,,i t. l, the Chief Secretary to Government, is not a necessary party to the uit.

34. Admittedly, when the plaintiffs were constructin ; the building under deemed permission, Defendant Nos.3, 5, 7 and 9 have dismantled the buitding. Though the plaintiffs added def ndant Nos.l0 // 35 to 12 in the suit, the Trial Court dismissed the suit against them as they had nothing to do with the demolition since in Ex.A-5, it is averred that the land is vested in them and they were providing civic amenities and it is only the Revenue Department that had demolished the building. Though Defendant No.9 had submitted his report under Exs.B14 and B40 reporting that Sy. No.465 is a patta land, he had got the same demolished. Since Defendant Nos.3, 5,7 and 9 were discharging their official duties under the impression that the land is Govemment land and they were discharging their functions to protect the alleged interest of the Govemment, no liability is fixed on them. However, Defendant Nos.2, 4, 6 and 8, the Revenue Officials in the official capacity, had resorted to demolition and caused damage and loss to the property belonging to the plaintiffs, they along with Defendant No.l being the Chief Secretary to the Government are liable for the decreetal amount.

35. As per the version of the plaintiffs, due to the demolition of the structures raised by them, they incurred damages to the tune of Rs.9,82,1251- and in support of the said contention relied upon the estimates of the damages under Ex.A20, which is not being disputed by the defendants. Ex. B37 is the cassette (video recording), which was 36 disptayed before open court hall of Trial Court to I ubstantiate the measurement of constructions made by the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. As per the impugned judgmenl, ll r.B37 discloses that after the pillars were raised and lintel work was done and centering was also laid, the structures were demolisho . The evidence of PWl discloses that the building was constructed u;'1 r slab level and slab was to be laid, that lintei decking was a[:'< laid and the construction was made in the piinth area of 5,500 S

1. feet with 46 pillars having one ramp and tu'o staircases to the up ;tairs. The said position also depicted in the cassette. Thus, the e r dence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A20 and B37 amply support the r:' ntention of the plaintiffs that the plaintilfs incurred a sum of Rs.9,8 l, I 25l- towards damages of the structures laid by them. Hence, the .[ 'ial Court while answering issue No.6 had rightly avrarded the said an< unt in favour of the plaintiffs,

36. The plaintiffs claimed an amount of R r 5,00,000/- for defamation and Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony. There is absolutely no doubt that the plaintiffs raised struchrres in the suit:< hedule properly with an intention to run a nursing home. Thc plaintiffs have I approached several forums for redressal of their grievance for years together. Apart from that the plaintiffs might have suffered any amount of mental agony due to the demolition of the structures raised over the subject property- Thus, the Trial Court has rightly awarded Rs.2,00,0001 towards mental agonY'

37. The Trial Court had awarded an amount of Rs'5'00'0001 towards professional loss. However, it is to be seen that the ptaintiffs have not produced any material to substantiate that they have sustained professional loss. There is also no basis for the plaintiffs to claim such a huge amount towards professional loss' In such circumstances' this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court ought not to have awarded Rs.5,00,000/- towards professional loss merely based on assumptions and presumptions. Though the plaintiffs claimed exemplary and punitive damages to a tune ol Rs'5,00,000/-' the Trial Court denied the same. I t

38. Thus, viewed from any angle, we are of the considered opinion that except to the extent of awarding Rs'5'00'000/- towards professional loss, the Trial Court has not committed any illegality or ( ( irregularity while passing the impugned judgment and decree' Hence' 20 the impugned judgment is liable to be interfered u i h only to that limited extent.

39. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by ; tting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 04.04.2007 in O.S. No. l of 2004 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar onlr o the extent of awarding Rs.5,00,000/- towards professional [oss. The remaining portion of the impugned judgment and decree pas.; d by the 'Iriat Court shall remain unaltered and intact. In the circ.r nstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applicatiorr pending il any in the appeal, shall stand closed. SD,- A.V.S.S.C.S.M. SARMA JOINT REGISTRAR i //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To, \-" '1. The ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial. 2. one cc to The Government-preader forippeats.Hign cc t l for the state of / ^ Telan_gana, Hyderabad. [OUT] I 3. One CC to Sri G.Madhuiudha-n Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] ' 4. Two CD Cooies JCK/ABK *p_ HIGH COURT DATED 07t10t2025 JUDGMENT + DECREE AS No.107 of 2008 Partly allowing the Appeal Suit without costs b \ S'l;\f (s 'll, 'i.';l:i :1,.) : c -I ) t sP^1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Appeal Suit No.107 of 2008 Between:

1. The 2. The 3. The 4. The 5. The AND Chief Secretary to Government, Government of A.P, Hvderabad. District Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnaqar. Joint Collector, Karimnagar District, Karimnagai. Sub-Collector, Jagtial, KarimnagarDistrict. - Mandal Revenue Officer, Jagtial Revenue lvlandal, Jagtial, Karimnagar District. ...Appellants/Defendants Nos.1 ,2,4,6 & 8 1 2 !) 4 6 7 B o Dr Sudhakar Reddy, S/o I\ilatta Reddy, aged 43 years, R/o Jaya Nursing Home, Ashok Nagar, Jagtial, Karimnagar. Dr K,R Rameshwari, D/o K. Ramanujulu, aged 40 years, R/o Jaya Nursing Home, Ashok Nagar, Jagtial, Karimnagar. B.R. Ir/eena, District colector, Karimnagar in p"rron. Ch. Devadas, Joint Collector, Karimnagbr dist in person G_o_pala Krishna Dwivedi, sub-collector, Jagtial Division (1995 to 1997) project officer, ITDA Eturu Nagaram, Warangal District. J. Venkateswara Rao, Mandal Revenue Officer, Jagtial, Karimnagar diskict. ...Respondent Nos.3 to G/Defendant Nos.3, 5, 7 & 9 R""pondent Nos'1 & 2/Plaintiffs The C,hairpersor, [v1u nicipal Cou ncil, Jagtia I M u n icipality, Karimnagar District. The.ttilunicipal Commissioner, Jagtial Municipality, karimnagar Disirict. R. Venkateswara Rao, Commissioner, Jagtial Municipality, Karimnagar District. ...Respondent Nos. 7 to g/Defendants Nos.10 to 12. (As no decree passed against Defendants 3,5,7 & 9(Respondents 3 to 6 herein, they are not necessary parties to this appeal.) (As the suit is dismissed against Defendant Nos. 10lo 12 i.e., Respondent Nos. 7 to g, no notice need be sent to them) Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC, against the judgment and decree dt.04.04.2007 passed in oS.No.3 of 2004 on the fite of the tl Additionat Diskict Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and decree of the Court below and upon hearing the arguments of the Advocate General appearing for the appellants and of Ms. Udayasri representing Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. -7 This Court doth Order and decree as follows

1. That the appeal is partly allowed by setting aside the Jrc gment and Decree dated 0404.2007 in O.S.No.3 of 2003 on the fite of tl tCditionat Diskict Judge, Karimnagar, only to the extent of awarding Rs.5,00,0001 t ,wards professional loss. 2. That the remaining portion of the impugned judgment ;r d decree passed by the Trial Court shall remain unaltered and intact.

3. There shall be no order as to costs: //IRUE COPYII To,

1. The ll Additional Diskict Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial 2. Two CD Copies JCI(ABK sc/ A.v.s.s.c.s.M. SARMA \ \otNr \ r '- =-- '&c.roru REG|STIAR--- oFFrcER HIGH COURT DArED'.07 t1012025 DECREE AS No '107 of 2008 Partly allowing the Appeal Suit without costs h \