The High Court · 2025

before the sale in 1960. Thus, the plaintiffand his predecessors in titlc had becn in possession and occupation of the land covered by four rooms within the compound of house lrcaring No.3-2-592 for more than 37 years t T,. GRR,J CCC.1 \'o rE of2001 The plaintil'f den rolished the tbur rooms within the cc.mpound bearing Municipal No.l-2-592 with a view to construct a new house and obtained perrnission fi'om MCU by rr'rnoving the existing building in permit No.l93/48 lor house bcaling No.523 and 592li/85 datcd -,0.C'6. 1988. lhe plaintifT demolishcci thc tirur roonrs existing in the cornpoun,l, but due to lack of funds couk not make coustruction of house or building in the land bearing Municipal No.i-2-592. 1'he plaintiff paid the Droperty tax 10 the house bearing No.j-2--s23 and l-2-592 rvhich rvere adjaccnl to each other. 'fhus, the plaintitl- r,nd his predecessors in title had become thr: owncr and possessol'of the lanC covered by tbr.rr roonrs within the cornpound bealing Municipal No.3-]-5 )l lbr rnore than 37 vears and acquirerl titlc to thc said propertv. There rvir:; a prescription of posscssion backwards under Section ll4 of the Evidence Act. 'fhc oper-r land covered by fbr-rr lcon-r:; rvithin the compound bearing l,4unicipal No.i-2-592 was not a goverrm(lnt land in Town Survey No.56. ,{hadi. Even otheru,ise, the plaintilf acqurred title to the suit propeny by teing in possession flot' more than 37 ycars ly adverse possession and the' title ol' Govemrnent if any \\'as ertinguished by operation of law tutdt:r' Section 1l read with Article I l2 oi the Limitation Act, 1963. ,t l). GRR,I C( C.1 \'o -6 t'f)00:

6. l'hc Plaintill submittcd that the secor.rd delendant issr.red a notice under Section 7 of A.P. Land li.rcroachrnent Acf 1905 1| File No.C/2601, 1997 dated 07.07.1997 in respect of thc suit properly'. 'l'he plaintitT subnrittcd an cxplanation on 21 .07.1997 denying the titlc ol the Governr.nent and asserting title in hinrself by virtuc o1'registered sale dced bearing docuurent No. 193/1988 dated 01.0. 1988 and registered sale deed document No.l032 dated 2l.l1.1962 relerred above. 'fherefble. the clel-endant Nos. I and I had no.iurisdiction to initiate proceedirrgs undcr the provisior-rs ol A.P. Land E.ncroachntent Act and it was for the delbndants to approach the Civit Courl to establish the title of the Governrncnt. 'l-herelore, thc notice issued b,v the second defendant on 07.07.1997 and the proceeding initiated by the def-endant No.2 under A.l'].Land E,ncroachment Act rvere not maintainabte in the eye ol' lau,. -l'he Govcrnment or thc delendant Nos.l and 2 could not decide such questions unilatcrally in its favour and colrld not try to evict the plaintilf honr thc suit property. The det'endant Nos.l and 2 were trying to intcrf-ere rvith thc possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit propertl' and threatening to dispossess the ptaintill lrorn the suit property. [n view ol the urgency. the plaintiff prayed to dispense with the notice under Scction 80 of'CI'C and filed the suitl- tr.GRR.J C( ('1 \o'8 oI:00:

7. The defendant No.2 filed written statemenl which was adoptcd by thc drfendant No.l. -fhe def'endant No.2 contended that the plaintill'was not entitled to seek declalation of notice in Fiic lio.C/260 l/97 dated 07.07. [()()7 irs null and void, as t'inal orders had bccn lrassed b1' the authorities on 26.07.1997 and il'there was any grievancc. rhe plaintitl'was entitled to pret'er aJrpeal under A.[). Land l]ncroachment At:t. -fhe plaintiff did not issue notict: under Section 80 ot'CPC rvhich u,as mandatorr'. As such, the suit u,as ro1 maintainable. 'fhe defcndant No.l also contc'nded that the plaintilT ri'as clairning injunction rvithout seekirrg thc relict' oi declaration of title. as such, the suit was not maintainablc on that ground also. The defendant No.2 contendcd that the suit schcdul,: Iand rvas situated in T.S.No.5 5, Ward- 191 . Block No.1 to an extent of l rJ9 sq. rnts., of Lingampally Villr.ge and the sarne \\,as government land. Berrvecn 1965 and 1970 final notifi,:ation was issued under Scction I 3 of the A.P. Sulvev and Boundaries Act and the same u,as notilled in A.['}. (;azotte during 1979. As such, the survey report and 'fSL Records became conclusive proof of ownership, :;ince no suit was tiled by the predecessors in title of plaintiff within threr: years from the date of Gazette Notification as contemplated under fiection 14 of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act,

1923. Thus, the said survey became final and the boundarics and title of ownership shown thercin were conclusive proof. Neithel thc' plaintill- nor 6 Dr.(;RR.J CCCA no-7E oI2002 his alleged predecessors in title had ever raised an objection to the said survey. Mere payment of taxes to MCH or apprcval of layout or perrnission by MCI I, u'ould not conllrur any right or title to the plaintilFon the govemment land.

8. The defendants fi"rrther contended that during the inspection ol Government lands, it was noticed that the plaintil'fhad encroached the suit schedule land and accordingly, action under A.P. I-and Encroachment had been initiated against the plaintitT and a notice under Section 7 was issued or^t 07.07.1997. The plaintifT submitted his reply. The detbndant after verifying the documents filed by the plaintiff with the revenue, surn'ey and settlement records, found that the said docurnents tiled by the plaintilf had no relevance ol corurection with the suit schedule land, which was a govemment [and. Therefore, speaking orders were passed by the delendant rejecting the claim of the plaintifl on 26.07 .1997. Subsequently, thereafter a notice under Section 6 of the Act was issued authorizing the Mandal Revenue Inspector to take over possession of the land. When the ptaintill refused to take notice and resisted delivery of possession of land, the Mandal Revenue Inspector served notice as required under law and taken over possession of the land of an extenr ol 109 Sq. Mtrs in T.S.No.56, Ward-191, Block-I situated in Lingampally village on 2g.07.1997. l Dt GRR,J cc( ..1 tio 78 of 1002 Subsequently, ther eatter thc District Collector, Hyderabad allotted the said land to the Distrir:t Educational Ol'ficer lbl construction of Govemrnent Upper Primarv School, Chowdi Nananria vide Proceedings No. C311211/97 datecl 10.10.1997 and accordingil' possessron of lie said land was handed o!er to thc representative ol' D.E.O., rluly conducting Panchanama on I i I 0.i997 . The plainti tT rvas never in poss<:ssion o I the suit schedule land. -l'he suit schedule lznd uras a Govcrrnnrrnt land and the Govemment w,as in i-rossession when the suit ,'r'as filcd. an,J praved to dismiss the suit u itl costs

9. Basing on the said pleadings, the trial court tiamcil the issues as lollorvs: l. Whether the ptaintiff is entitled lbr the reliel o1'declaration as r,, t:ll as injunction as prayed for')

2. \\lhether the suit is bad lbr non-issuane c o1' notic,: as required under Section 80 oICPC? i. l-o u, rat reliel?

10. The plaintilf examined himsell as PW. l antl got rnarkcd Exs.AI to A14. A neighbouring person in the locality rvas ex,rtninecl as PW.2. The MRO ol l Iimayathnagar rvas examitrcd as DW. I rnd Exs.B I to B l0 rvere marked on rehalf of the defendants. The Inspectoi' of Survey in 8 l)r.G RR.l (C(.1 t:o. )-3 of 2001 the olfice of the DeputSr Directol ol'Survey and [-and Records,, l{ydcrabad was examined as DW.2. I l. On considerir-rg the oral and docurnentary er,'idence on rccord, the trial courl i.e. thc U Scnior Civil Judge. Clity Civil Courr. Ityderabad, decreed the suit. Aggrieved bi, the said .iudgment and decree dated

10.04.2000, the delendants prelerred this appeal.

12. Heard Sri G. -t'irupathi Reddy. learncd Governrnent Pleader for appeals for the appellants and Sri B.ltavi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the respondcnt-plainti 11.

13. [,earned Gor,ernr.nent l)leadcr lbr appeals contcnded that the tlial court comrnitted an error in giving a linding that thc respondent- plaintitl- or his predecessors in titlc had perfccted their riglrt by way ol adverse possession without fi'aming an issue or evidence let in the said regard. As per the plaint, thc plaintilf mcntioned that there $'ore two house numbers 3-3-592 and 3-2-523 and that they together constituted 109 sq. yds. The schedule was not propcrly shown. -lhe boundaries rvere shown in respect ofthe total 190 sq. yds., but not 109 sq. yds. As per the schedule of the property shown in Ex.Al sale deed. it was 190 sq. yds., but not 109 sq. yds. The boundaries were shown separately for the two houses in the 9 trt.(;RR,J ( C(.1.\o.1E o12002 link docurnent Ex.A3. But in the present suit, the boun<larics were shorvn in respcct of the total 190 sq. yds. When the descriptio;.r of the property was not correct the plaintill could not maintain the strit {br ,leclaration of tit lc. l.l. Ile tirrrher contendcd that, in his cross-e :.,rnrirration I'W.l admitted that he d,:irrolished the existing house, as such. the suit schedule properl) r11ust bL' irn open land, but the plaintiff was clairrins, that it ivas house u ith a courlr,)Llnd wall. In Ex.AI sale deed. it was slrou n as an open land. \,s sucir. tlrc- rlaintifl purchased an open land. FIis cc,nte ntion that he dcniolished the houscs was false. The plaintifl lailed io t:stablish tire identillcation of the properly with boundaries. The plairrtill filed Ex.46 to A l0 receipts sho',r,in-q payment of property tax to MCI{. i}rrt. there u'as no qucstion ol paynrerrt ol tax to open land. A notice rvas i:;sucd under Section 7 of the l.and Encroachrnent Act to tlre plaintitl Lrnde'r llx.u l on

07.07.1997 anci an order was passed under Section 6 o1' the Land encroaclrrnent Acl u nder Ex.B2 on 26.07 .1997 . The possession was taken under panchanama nrarked under Ex.B3 and a gazette notilication was aiso issrred under Ex.89 ,:n 28.02.1977. The sarne became llnal -l he suit has to be trled within thr,:e ycars from the date ol notification by, thc. aggrici,ed party. As such, th: suit was barred by lirnitation. Thc pl:tintifl' rvas 10 Dr GRR,J cLCl to.t8 of 2002 claiming title and altemativell, adversc possession, which were contradictory claims. No document rvas filctl by him to show that he rvas in posscssion of the properly fbr rnore than l0 years. As such. the clairn of adverse possession was nol. maintainable. As thc plaintil'fl admittcd that he derriolished the existing house and no rlew house rvas constructed by him after demolition, he could not flle the suit showing it as lour roonrs. 'l-he observation ol the trial coult that the plaintifl' u,as in occupation ol' trvo houscs with appudenant land thereto rvas against the admission made by him in his cross-examination. All the tax rcceipts filcd by hinr were prior to 1999 but, did not perlain to thc date ol'liling o1'tl're suit. -ihc plaintilT failed to prove that he was in posscssion ol'the suit schedule properly and played to allow the appeal by sctting aside thc juclgmcnt of the trizrl cour-t

15. The leamed Senior Counsel lor the respondcnt-plaintil'1, on the other hand, contended that there was no pleading and evidence with regard to the arguments advanccd by the Icamed Government Pleader for Appeals with regard to boundaries, location ol the property etc. The plaintiffpurchased the property through registered sale deeds and also filed link documents of his vendors. All his vendors were also in possession of the suit schedule property prior to him. The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1988. Notice was issued to the plaintiff I1 ( <( t \ D.6RR,I 73 oJ 20t)2 under the Land Encroachment Act in the year i997. T'hc trial courl considering tl,.e r vidence on record, observed that the plaintifl u'as a bonatlde purchrrsc i' and that he was also residing as a tenant in tl-r.' suit schedulc prop!-r't\ prior to his purchase. IIe further contendcd that no enquiry was conclL.cted by the MRO. After issuing notice, rintler Section 7 ol the Land Encroachment Act, dated 07.07 .1997, the plaint:fl submitted his title deeds as .,vell as the title deeds of his vendors. but without considering thcrn p'operly, an order was passed under Section 6 ol the Act on 16.07. 1997 unrler Ex.B2. Panchanama proceedings rvere conducted undeL [ix.B3 recor,ling that possession was taken oV€r .)o 28.07.1991 " Undcr the Land [:nt,roachment Act, a right of appeal over the proceedings of the MRO rvas rrovided to the RDO. Thirty (30) tlay:i time rvas prescribed under th: Act for preferring the appeal. But. wrthout evcr.r waiting fbr 30 day:;, possession was taken over within two days atter passing the order under Ex.A2 on 26.07.1997. Mere conducting -l'orvn survel' rvould not co tler title on the Government. The Govt:rnrrent ihiled to prove its title and tailed to follow the procedure for taking ;tossession. lf the suit schedule propefty was a govemment land, there would be prohibition for registlation, but the Registrar had not raised any objection tbr registering tirc salL: deeds. Ex.Bl notice also would describe the land as G-Abadi and n.rturL' r f occupation as open with compoul-rcl u'al[ When a t2 T".CRR,J CCCA NaTE of 2002 conlpound wall was there, it would denote that it was in possession ol some person. The respondent-plaintiff ri,as a bonafidc purchaser and his title and possession was rightly recogrrizcd by the trial court and relied upon the j udgnients ol the Flon'ble Apex Court in Governntcnt of Andhra Pradeslr v. Thummala Krishna Rao and anotherr on the aspect that the surnmary rernedy prescribcd by Section 6 is not the kind of lcgal process which was suited to an adi udication ot- conrplicatcd qucstions ot- title. I 5.1 . Hc I'urther relied upon the judgrncnt ol the l{igh Courl of A.P. in Hydcrabad Potteries Privatc Limited v. Collcctor, Hyderabad District and another2 on the aspect that thcre was no prcsulnption that every entry made in TSLR shall be presunred to bc proved until contrary was proved, as in the case of entries madc in the Record ol Rights under the provisions of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land Act, I 97 I .

15.2. He further relied upon the judgrnent ol the l{igh Courr ol A.P. in State of A.P. and others v. Singam Setty Yellanandar on the ground that issuance ofnotice under Section 80 (2) olthe Code of Civit Procedure could be dispensed with on the ground ofurgency. 1 ltR tg82 sc tost ' zoo r (:) alr zoo r lttt zoo3 lp t8z Irr.(;RR,! C(C.4 \'a 7E oI )002

15.3. ite iiuthc'r relied upon the judgment olthe tligh Coun of'A.P. in S. Vasantha a nd another v. District Collector, llvclcra bad District. Hydcrabadr on irc aspect that the summary renreciv un,1er thc [.and [:ncroachment .,i.c t. I 905 could not be invoked whe n tht: pirrties rvcrc in setticcl possessiun li tl.rc property in question for a longtinre. I) .1. I le 1ii ther relicd upon the judgment of the Fligh t]our1 of A.P in B. \. Manga l-rcvi und another v. State of Andhra Pradcsh'on the ilspecl ihat rcnrcth unclcr Section 6 of the Land Encroachrneni Act, i90-5 could not be rcsonecl to unless the alleged encroachment wa; of a fecent ofl gr lr

15.5. lle lurther relied upon a judgment of the High Court of A.P. in G. Satyanarayan:r r'. Government of A.P. and others6 on the aspect that issuance ol- proceedings based only on entry in TSL Rer:ords would not constitute conc ltrsive proof of title. l(r. Basins on thc arguments advanced by both the learr-red counsei, now the polrts that arise lor consideration in this appeal are: ( I ) \\'irether the notice issued by the defendant No.2 to the p aintillvide File No.C/2601 of 1997, dated 07.07.1997 cirn be declared as null and void, and u'hether the ' :oor 1t 1 rLo 6o: t zo I t 16y ,rl.o 2ttl ': :otr 1ty ,rLo lsS t,1 h.GRR,! ( ('c.4 No.7E oI 2002 plaintiff is entitled to be granted consequential perpetual injunction against the appellants-det'endants? (2) Whether the trial courl comrnitted anv decreeirrg the suit in lavour of the plaintiff? cfrof ln (3)To ri,hat result?

17. POINT No.l: I n the light of the contentions raised by the leamed Governrncnt Pleader for Appeals and the leamcd Senior Counsel tbr thc lespondent- ptaintiff. the evidence of the witnesses needs to be looked into. The plaintifl examined himself as PW. I . He stated that he purchased trvo houscs fi'om Smt. Umrnahani Khusroo Banu on 01.02.1988 under a rcgistered sale deed document No. 193/1988 and that the suit schedule propefty was bearing premises No.3-2-592 situated at Raharnathbagh, Chappat Bazar,Hyderabad. He stated that his vendol got the suit property under a gift deed (HIBA) executed by Basit Ansari, who was the son of his vendor. The said Basit Ansari purchased the property frorn his vendor Sri Gaddam Kista Reddy on 04.03.1960 and said Gaddarl Kista Reddy inturn purchased the property from Fah-E-Rasool Khan. L,x.Al was the registered sale deed document through which the ptaintiff purchased the property from Smt. Ummahani Khusroo Banu Nizami. Ex.A2 was the memorandum of HIBA dated 05.01.1981 along with its translation. Ex.A3 *5>+ ''- f-i Dt CRR.-1 was the registi.:rc,l sale deed through which Basith Ans;rri purchased the propcrt)' tl'orn (j. Kista Reddy. Flx.A4 was the ceftilled co,ry of the sale decd through uhi,'h G. Kista Reddy purchased the property frorn Fah-E,- Rasool Kl-ran. I)\\i.l IInhcr stated that before he pulchrrsed the suit schedule propert\ n thc vear 1988, he rvas residing in the suit propert), as a tenarrt of Basit ,\n;ari l}om the year 1972. he used to pa1, monthly rent ol- Rs.70,'- to thc- sriid ilasit Ansari. 'lhe suit schedule propr:rty consisted of lour rooms surrourrtletl bv cornpound rvall. He stated that the compound wall u'as irr exislcn::e since 1960 onrvards. The total plinth are a of the suit schedule proPcrl\ r, as i90 sc1. yds. Fle obtained permission frc,m MClj for reconstruction of tl e housc. The said permission dated 10.C4. 1988 rvas rnarked as Ex.r\S. Fxs.A6 to Al0 are the property tax receipr.s issued by MCLI. \oticc $'irs issLre(l bv defcndant No.2 dated 07.07.1997.,rras marked as Ex..,\ I i . 'fhe rc rly given by the plaintiff to the sairl n,rtice dated

17.07.1991 uas ir.rrrked as I'.x.AI2 and the extract liont the lax Assessurcnt Itcgister of the property tax of MCH was marked rrs Ex.Ai3. PW. I tirrther stated that while hc rvas residing in the suit schedule propeft),. he receir' ccj notice fi'om the dcf'endant under Ex'Al I ' He was in occupation ol'the su t scheduie property lor the past 37 years. The two houscs rvere located a1 a combined place. His predecessor in title also residcd in the suit sch:dule propefty and that they had perfeclr:d their title t6 l)r.CRR,l C{ C,l ,\o '8 nf:ao:

18. ln his cross-examination, PW. I stated that notice rvas issucd in respect of 109 sq. yds., of land, but he filed suit seeking declaration irr respcct ol' 190 sq. yds., ol land with compound wall and house. He also adnritted that Ex.Al plan would shorv the prernises bearing No.3-2--i9l as ar1 open land rvith conrpound wall. He adrnittcd that in the plan attachcd to Ex.A4 the open land was rlot shorvn. [{e admitted receipt ol notice undcr Section 6 of the r\.P. Land Encroachment Act and that he sr-rbrnittcd his cxplanation ivithin time. He denied that he was evicted b1, the MllO lionr the suit propefty and stated that thel'c was a house existing and that hc rvas corlti rluing residing there.

19. The plaintilf got examined a neighbour, u,ho t,as residing adjacent to his housc, as PW.2. [']W.2 stated that he kne,"r, thc plaintit'1' since 1972. I{e was a resident of Chappal Bazar, I{yderabad. I{is house was third house adjacent to the plaintiff s house. The house of the ptaintill belonged to him. but did not belong to the Government. In the entire area, there r.vas no govcmment land. The ptaintiff purchased an old house, disrnantled it and constructed a new house.

20. In his cross-exarnination, PW.2 admitted that he had not scen the documents as to thc extent ol land purchased by the ptaintilL lle stated that there was no govemment land in front of the house and deniecl that t1 there was qovern lrcnt land in front of the house of the plaintiff and the plaintifl encroach (rd the sarne. 2l . l-[r:' ]1llo. I{irrayatnagar *,as exanrined as [)W.1. l{e statcd that thr: suit ianci l',clongcd to the govcmmcnt and thc sarne was a vacant land. No munrciprr j nurnber was allotted to it. 'fhe extent ol the land u'as 109 sq. meters. lt ri'as situated in 1'S No.56, block No. l, Ward No.l91 of Lingarnpalll' r'illiruc. Durine the rcgular inspection of Govcrnment lands by his predecc:;sors. it was lound that thc plaintilT encroached the govemment lancl arci a notice rvas issued to hin-r under Section 7 of the Acr on 07.07.1997 and thc plaintiff eavc a replv on 17.07.1997. The reply submitted by the pl: intilT rvas not relevant. Therefore, aftel due enquiry, a final order of cliction was passed under Section 6 of the Land Encroachrnent Act r.n 26.07.1997. 'fhe plaintifldid not preler any appeal. They have takc'n pr65sgs5ion ol the land on 28.07 .1997 unde'r a panchanama and handed ov,lr tir(r vacant land to the District Educational Officer tbr constructiou o1' Scirooi on I 3. 10.1997. -l'hc notice under Se ction 7 oi- the Land Encroachment '\ct issucd to the plaintilf was marked as F.x.B1. The order passed by the |l RO under Section 6 of the Land Enci"oachment Act rvas markcd as l:l ll.l 'fhe panchanama lbr taking over posse:;sion lrorn the plaintiff was rrarrcd as E.x.B3. The copy of the extract of the Town Suwey Land Register pertaining to Town Survey No.56 was rnarked as I:x.R4. The sketch plan vnas marked as Ex.B5 and the proceedings tbr handing over the schedulc propefty to the DEO dated 13.10.1997 ri,as markecl as Ex.B(r. -l'he plan enclosed to it was marked as Ex.Il7. l he notillcation issued by tl-rc Assistant Director ol Survey and Land Re cords dated 30.07.1960 w'as rnarked as Ex.IlS and the Gazette Notitlcation dated

18.02.i977 was r.nalked as Ex.B9. Ex.Bl0 was the plan dcmarcation skctch.

12. In his cross-e xarnination, DW. 1 adrnitted that during his recent inspection he came to knorv tlrat there were structurcs erected over thc suit land by the ptaintiff and they were contemplating to book a Iand grabbing case against tlic plaintifT. He admittcd tl'rat on the east of the lancl thcrc u,as house olthc plaintilf. On the northem and southern sides, there rvere houses and on the wcstern side there was a lane. He stated that the documents filed by the plaintiff \\,ere not relevant to the suit site. Hc adrnittcd that the suit site rvas a Govemment Abadi land. He admitted that in E,x.A I noticc the bounclaries of the suit property were not disclosed. Ex.B4, the Town survey extract also did not disclose the entire description ol the property. The boundary description of the vacant sitc was not shown in E,x.B4. He adrnitted that he had not filed the map o1' rhe l9 ({C.4 No-7E of2002 Lingampally village. He stated that after Torvn Sun,t-y was conducted between the year: i 965 tc I 970, thcy' rvere lollowing iile lown Survey Land Records- I le slated that he had no prool' to shtrrv l.hlt the notices rvere scrved to thc plaintiif a1 the timc oltou,n surve) and added that the Deputy Director t:f Survc'y and Land Records would bc hc,lding all the records pertaining trr the issue o[ notice. He also admitte,l tl at as per the records. the suit la'rd did not have any nurnber and that he cid not know rvhethcr there ur:rc structures and a house thercin. He stated that they had no knowledge abo.rt Exs.A-S to Alj reccipts issuecl b1'thc MCH. i{e stated that no objet tions rvele t-iled by the ptaintifll'withirL three years of issuing gazette notirlcation as such, thc suit schedule piopefty belonged to the (lo',zemment.

23. The [nspector of Survey lroni the of]lce of the Deputy Director, Survey en,i Land Records. Ilyderabad was cxarnine<l as DW.2. He stated that the J,rwn Survey was conducted in the Citl' ol Hyderabad during the years l9tr5- 1970. 'fhe sulvey was condttcted r.Lndi:r the A.['}. Survey and Bouncialies Act, 1920. During survey, noticcs ra'ere issued under Section 9 (2) ofl the A.P. Survey Proceedings Act. l-inglmpally in which the suit propertl' was located, rvas also covered vvith torvn survey. I{e stated that Ex.BS was the notitlcation issued under Section 6 of the l() C( C.t \o- ;tt oI:00: Land Encroachment Act and Ex.B9 rvas the Gazetle Notification issued undcr Scction I 3 arrd Ex.U 10 was the certified extract ol tlie plotted dertrarcatecl sketch prepared bi, the olieinal Surveyor. As per Ex.Bl0 (A) thcrc rvcrc no stlr.rctul'es in the sr"rit lancl. At the tirlc of Survey, it bears 'fou,n Survcy No.56 adnreasuring 109 sq. rneters. 'l'hcy had issued notices undcr Section 9(l)ol'the Act. I'he acknowledgnrents o1'the rcccipts olthc notices \vel'e prcscrved u'ith the Ccntral Survey Office, Narayanaguda, Ilydcrabad. Hc stated that as pcr G.O.Ms.No. l039, dated 14.09.1972 all open lands and Abadi [ands rvcrc treated as Govemment Lands. As pcr their records, the suit land r.r,as recorded as govemnlent land (Government Abadi Land)

24. In his cross exarnination, he adrnitted that he had not given any at'fidavit to show that thc suit sc,hedule property was a vacant site. [-le denied that a building rvas cxisting in the suit property since 1937. He admitted that Ex.B l0 did not shou, the extent of any survey number and fbr the extcnts, they had to rcl-er to thc Town Surwey Land Register.

25. 'fhus, as scen liorn the evidence of DWs. I and 2, they were clairning that the suit propcrly was a vacant land, it was paft olT.S. No.56. As per G.O.Ms.No. 1039, datcd 1;1.09. 1972, all open lands and Abadi lands were treated as government lands and as it is a vacant land, they have 1l Dt.CRR,l C'C(4 No.7E rf 2002 issued noticc urrtler Section 9(2) of lhe A.P. Survev Proct,edirrgs Act and issucd Gazcttr- notihcation under Sectiorr li ol'the said ,\ct

26. F r. l9 would only disclose that a detailecl lou,n survcy of the villages/wards \\'as completed under Section l3 of' thc A ['. Survel' and Rotrndaries Act. 1923 and unless thc sun'ey notif red u'as rnodified by a decrec olcivil cotrrt under the provisions ol'Section 1.4 olthe said Act. the rccords ol thc r;urvcy shall be conclusivc prool tliat thc houndarics dcte-mrined and r'rcorded therein shall bc conclusive 1'rrool'that they u,ere corrcctly recolclcr and detcrrnincd. 'l-hc villagc nanrc I-ingarrpally and the Ward Nos. [90 rrnd 191 were also nrentioned irr the said gazcttc notification. As per DW.l, if anybody had any objections, rvith regard to thc bor.rndarics determined thercin, the ob jcctions ltavc to bt: ljlc'd u ithin three years ol' the said notification. As no ob.iections \\ ere fllcd u ithin thrce vears by the rlaintillor his predccessors in title lionr tlrc datc ol'thc gazette notification on 28.02. 1971, the said propefty l'elonged to tl.re govcnlnlent.

27. 'l["rc evidence ol PW.l would disclose that hc wa:; residing as a tenant ol'Ilasit Ansari in the suit schedule property since 197' and he purchased the sarnc in the ycar 1988 lioni the mother ot- Basit Ansari. Thou-eh the evidencc of DWs. I arid 2^would disclose that the1, \ave issucd DLGRR.T CCC1^o.78 of 200) notices under Section 9(2) ol the A.P. Survey Proceedings Act and the acknowledgments ol tlie rcceipt ol the notices were prescrved with the Ccntral Sun,ey Oflice, Naraylnguda, Hyderabad, no proof was filed to show that the noticcs rvele. sen ed on thc plaintifl or his owner Basit Ansari al the time ol conducting sulvcy by the dcpartment ol Survey and land rccords. Exs.Al to A4 salc dceds do not disclosc the survev number except the house nur.nbers. Ex.A4 rcgistered sale deed docurnent No.484/1964 issuecl by' the oltlcc ol'tht' Distlict Registrar, I{yderabacl is pertaining to the salc of tr.vo irouses lrearing Municipal Nos.3-2-523 and

592. Thus, lhere rverc houscs existing since 1960 and it rvas not an open land. DW.2 also stated in his eviclence that in thc entire arca, th(lrc was no government land or any opcn lancl in lront of the house of the plaintilf-.

28. 'l'he learned Senior Counsel tbr the responde nt-plaintiff also filed a photograph showing thc cxistcncc ol- a house in the suit schedr,rle propefly ancl tl-rat thcre was no vacant lancl existing thercin. The photograph was dated 23.11.2017. All the registered sale deeds rnarked undel Exs.AI and Al also dcscribc the suit schedulc property as bearing Municipal No.3-2-523 and 3-2-592 aclnieasuring 190 sq. yds., consisting of a tiled roof house situated at Rahamath Bagh, Kachiguda, I{yderabad. It l-1 was stated to bc comprising of three small roorns. kitchen, bath and lavatory with the tiled roof.

29. 'fhe llon'ble Apex Court in ()overnmcnt of A.P, v Thunrmala Krishna Rao and anothcr (citcd strpra)ltclcl lha.: "l hc sumnurv remedy lor eviction u,hich is providcd lbr by S. 6 ol the Act 0ilr1 irc [r:sorteri to by the Govcnrmcnt only alainst ;,ersons uho are in unaulhorized occupation ol any land ri,hich is "the propert] ol'( o\.ernment". lfthere is a bona litle disputc rcgard.ng ihe trtlc o1'thc g()\,crntrent to any propeny. thc (iovernmcnt cannot lake ur unilateral decision in its own lavor that the propcrty belonss to it. and on the basis ,ri such decision, take recourse to the sunrm ')' rL'nledy pro,, idcd bv ir. 6 tbr evicting the person rvho is in possession of thc Dropcrty untl,'r a bona fide clairr or titic. sunrrrary rctncdy orescribcd br S. 6 is not the kind of legal procc'ss shich is suitcd to an adjudicatr, n olcomplicatcd qucstions oltitle." .fhe

30. As lig rtly contended by the lcamed Senior' (--orLnsel fbr thc responclent-p la in t il'i il the suit schedulc property was a sovelnment iand, the sarlc should hrrve been included undcr the B-Re:s.ister Jf the Sub- Registrar Oftlce prohibiting registrations. But, the Registrar continuing to legistel tire prolrerty since 1960 onwards and the MC,l grantine permissions lor con:truction of houses and collecting taxes shows that the government is not s,rt'iously pursuing the nlatter that it rvas a !1o\/emrnL'nt land. No docur.ncnls are filed by the appellants to show that it r.r,as a qovemnrc-rtt p|opcllt except relying upon the Town Sun,ey and Land Records 'l-he judgrr,:nt of this Court in Hydcrabad Potterics pvt. Ltd, v. l.i CCC I .\'o. 1E oJ :00: Collector, Hyderabad District and another (2 supra) u,otrld make it clcar that: "A bare reading of schenr,-' ol'tirc i\.P. Sun,ei, and Boundarics Act. 1923 would makc it clear that thc survey madc untler the said Act is n.rainly intended lbr the pLrrposcs ol idcntitlcation ot'thc lands and Ilxation of boundaries. Thcre is no provision undcr 1he Act intcnding to makc any dctail enquilies rvith legard to thc right. title and interest ol'the pcrsons in the lands. It is ncither thc objcct nor thc schcme of the said Act. The're is no prcsul]rlltion that c-\,cq ortrv madc in thc I'SLR shall be presumed to be tnre until contrary is proved as in thc case ol entries made in thc record ol'rights undcr thc provisions ol A.P. Rccord of Rights in l-antl Act. 1971. tt is not a r-ccold of'right. There is no such provisiorr in thc Andlua Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act. I92i. 1 he question as to the naturc and scopc ol'cntrics in l'SLIt had I'allcn lbr considcration in \!'A Nos. I 1 5 and 160 of 1000 bclirre a Division Ilcnch ol'this Court. llre l)ivision Llcrich ohscrr ccl thiit "thc cntries in 'ISLR are no doubt relcvant. Llrrt they are not conclusive. lt is comnlon knowledge that there rnaY be nrany instanccs wherc the ouners of land in urban arca-s rvill not be in a position to correlatc the house numbers or ward numbcrs t() tlle survc) numbers or thc entrics may not be upto date and that rllay introducc some practical difficulties in obtaining fSLl{ extracts.....'l he tSl.tt cannot be rcgardcd as a solc guiding. lector."

31. In S. Vasantha and anothor v. Collector, H1'derabad District, Hyderabad and another (4 supra) also it was hcld that: "When predecessors in titlc of petitioncrs and srrbsequent thereto, tlle petitioncrs har e bcen ir.r scttletl possession of propc'rtv in question for a longtin.re, qLrestion ilhether the same is undcr detcctive title or not have to be adjudicatcd upon. Summary renredy undcr the A.P. Land Encroachrncnt Act. t905 cannot be invoked."

32. In the present case also, the registered salc deeds filed by the respondent-plaintifT marked under Exs.Al, 43 and 44 would disclose that thc respondent-plainti lf and his predecessors in title have been in settled t5 possession of'tl.re propefty in question tbr sufficiently a longtitnc. Whether the same rvas unrler a defective title or not, nceds to bc adjudicated upon and a strmmary rcmedy under Section 6 ol the Act could not be invokcd to cvict the respo ndc n t-plaintitt.

33. By rt:fbnrng to the judgnrent of the Hon'bie l.pcx Coun in (iovcrnment of .\ndhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao, it urs he ld in S. \-asar tha and another \'. Collector, lll tlt:rairad District, Ilvdera bad anrl another that: '-[l se'cnrs t<r us clear fionr these provisions that the srrmntir]' rcnrerll tirl eriction rvhich is provided lor by section 6ol thc .\ct ,:an be resortcd to by the Govemment only against pcrsons wlro are in unauthorizcd nccupalion of any land which is "the l)rop( rtv 01' Govcrrurrcnt' . In regard to property described in sub- sectirrns rl) and (2) olscction l. thcre can be no doubt, dilficulty or disputc as to thc titlc- ot the (irx,ernment and, therefore, in respect olsuch prrperty. the (iovc'rnnrent .r ould be ll'ec to take recoursc to tlre sumrnarr i"ernedv of cviction pror ided lirr in scction 6. A person who occupics a pafl 01'a puhlic road. strecl, bridge, the bed of the sea and the like. is in unauthorised occupation of property which is declared by sectic'n 2 to be thc pr()pe(v ol the (iovemment and, thercfore, it is in public intcrest to e.'ict him expeditiously which can onli' bc donc b1' resorting tl) tlrc summary remedy provided by the Act. []ut section 6 ( 1) rvhich r:onlcrs the porver of summary eviction on thc Govenrrncnt linrits that porvcr to cases in which a person is in uniruth,rrised occupation o a land "tbr which he is liablc to pa)' .rssesjment Lrndcr scction i". Scction 3. in turn, refers to unauthoriscci occupatirrn of anv larrd rvhich is lhe propefty of Govcrnment" [l |nerr is il honafldc clisl'utc rcgarding the title of the Govemn'ren. tc anv propcrty tlre ( iovernment cannot take a unilateral decision iit tt:; owrt t'avour that tlre propefty belongs to it, and on the basis o[ such decision take rccourse to the summary remedy providcd by srctiorr 6 fbr evictirrg he person who is in possession olthe propertyr under a bona fide clairn or title. tn the instant case, there is unquestionably a genuine dispu e between the State Government and the rcsponCents as to whethcr the three plots of land were the subject-nrattr:r ol acquisition prt ccedings taken by the then Govemment of llvderabad t6 C(-( 1 :\o 7E ltl )0t): iurd whether tire Osmania University for whosc bcnellt thc plots are allegcd to havc been acquired, had lost titlc to the property by' operation ofthe law oI'limitation. The suit lllcd by thc Universitl rras dismissed on the ground ol limitation. intcr alia. sincc Natah Habibuddin was lbund to have cncroached on thc propcrt),morc than twelve years beforc the datc ofthe suit and thc [Jniversity \\ras tlol ir] posscssion o[ thc propertv at an\, timc tithin that pcriod. I lavinrr lailed in the suit. the University activatcd thc (iovcrnmcnt to evicr rhe Narvab and his transfcrees sumnrarily. rihich scents to us is impcrmissible. 'fhe respondents harc a bona fide clairn to liticatc and they cannot be evicted save b1, the due proccss ol'Iau'. surnntarJ' rcmcdy prescribed by section 6 is not thc kind ol legal process nhich is suited to an adjudication of conrplicated quoslions ol title. l'hat procedurc is, thcrefore, not thc due process of law lor evicting the respondents. -fhe The conspectus of facts in tlic instant case.iustiljes lhe ric* that thc question als to the title to the tlrrec plots cannot appropliatcll, bc dccidcd in a sunlmary inquirl contcnrplatccl trr. scctions (r and 7 rrltlrc Act. 'l'he long posscssion ol'the rcspondcrrts ancl their prcdecessors- in- title ol these plots raiscs a goruinc clispute betuccn thcnr arrd thc (iovcrmnent on thc question ol titlc. renrernbcring especially tliat tlrc propcny. adrnittedly, belongcd originalll' to the famih, of' Nau ah Habihuddin lrom whom the respondents claiur to have purchased it. I'he question as to whether the titlc to the properry camc to be vested in the Governmcnt as a rcsult ol acquisition and the lirrther qucstion whether the Nawab encroached upon tl.rat propcrt) thcrealter and perfected his title by adverse possession nrust bc dccided in a properly constituted suit. I\4a1, bc. that the Got'ernnrent ntaY succecd in establishing its title to thc propcrty hut. until that is done. thc respondents cannot be evicted surnmarily."

34. It was furlher held thercin in the aboi,c judgment S. Vasantha and another v. Collector, Hyderabad f)istrict, I{yderabad and another that: "ln the dccision relcrred in l)istrict Collcctor Ranga Reddl' Dislrict, Hyderabad and others v. K. Narasinga Rao and others, the Division Bench of this Court follorving the ratio of the Apcx Court retbrred in Govemment of A.P. v. T. Krishna Rao. held at Para 2 as hcreunder: "We have good reasons to agrec with thc view taken by the learned single Judge that the procecding undcr Article 226 of the Constitution ol [ndia. is 'not suitcd for any )1 CCC.1Xo.78of:40) adjudlcation into the title of any person in a propertl. We have. hor.rer er. good reasons to difl'er with the view taken by the lcanre,l single Judgc that Section 6 of the Land [incroachmcnl ,\ct is not available to the appellants lor removal of the elleged cr.rcroacirments upon a land. rvhich satislies the requir:ments uudcr ihe n.P. [-and Encroachment Act. 1905. Sectron [, of thc Act sti tes' "{ l) A n pcrson unauthorizcdll occupying any land lor u'hich hc rs liabie to pav asscssnrent under Section 3 rnay bc sLrnrrnirnlv cvictcd by the Collcctor. 'l-ahsildar or l)cputr I alisik ar'. and any crop or other product raised on thc land shall bc liahlc to tbrt-eiture and an1, building or other construction crcctcd ur anything depositcd therein shall also, i{'not rcmoved br hrni alier such rvritten nolice as the Collector. T:ihsiidar or may decm reasonable, be liablc to forfeiture. Dc'pLrtr Forlr'itrrrcs under this scction shall be adjudgetl by the Collccirr. l ahsildar or Deputl l'ahsildar and any propert)' so lirrlL'ite.l slrall be disposcd o1' as thc Collector, l-litsikiar or [)c'putl l airsildar rnay direct." 'i'ahsildar 'lhis scction r.iocs not speak either ol the duration, shorl or lorg. oi cncroachnrcrrt and indicate that for thc decision whethcr any person should be surnnrarilv evicted rests u,ith the Collector, '[ahsiltlar or Deputl Tahsildar, as the case may be and on the decision of the quesrion in rcspect ol' the naturc of the property on u{rich thc encroacllnlL-rlt is alleged to have been commifted. What may finally be relevant in strclr a case in issuc is whether somc c.nc is in occupaliorr ol'il propertv bonafidc and whether such possession is cxerciscd bv hirr openly. [f such possession is exercised ftrr an apprecilble le'rrgth o1'time. one can prima lacie accept the bonafidc of the claini. otircrrvisc, the claim nray nol be deemed rvithout thcrt: being adjudicatiorr to bc bona fide. ln Government of Andhra Pradcsh v. l. Krishna Ilao. the Supreme Courl has said: "lf there is a bonaflde dispute regard rrg the titlc of the Covcrnment to any propert). thc fiovcmrnenl ciuuiot takc a unilateral dccision in its own lavour that thc property ir.-'longs to it, and on the basis of such dccision take recoursc t(r th! sLrmnlary rcrnedy prt-rvided by Section 6lbr evi.:ti[g the person *i,r is in possession oi the prroperty undcr a bonalidc claim or titlc." ln this case. the Supreme Court has also indicated that iong posscssior uould raisc a genuine dispute between thc clairrant and the Gor crr ulent on the question of title, but also pointeci ou.: "lt is not the duration, short or long, ol- encroachment that is concltrsive ol' the qucstiou whcther lhc surnmary remedy prescribed b1 the Act can be put into opcration for evicting a person. What is relevan. ibr thc decision ol that qucstion is more the nature of the propertv on rvhicli the cucr()achment is allcged to have been committed and the consideration \,hcther thc clairn of thc occupant is bona lide. Ilut l8 ccc-.1 No. 78 of 200) duration ofoccupation is relcvant in thc scnse thal a pcrson wlro is in occupation of a propcrty opcnly for an appreciable lcngth o1'rirnc can bc taken, prima facie. to have a bona fide claim to tlic prope()' requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedurc of laiv." What tirus flows lrom thc abor,c. in our considered vicrv. is that prirnary conccrn will bc to sec rrhcther there is a bona llde clainr ol'titlc arld there arc reasonable qrouncls 1rr printa lacie hold that the title to thc property is in disputc and as suclt that a primary (sic. sununary) procedurc lbr eviction slroulcl be avoided. Advcrting to thc lacts of the casc. \vhat is sL,ctr is. a scrics ol transactions in rcspcct ol'thc properti' u'ithout. lrosever. an1'disputc as to the property being under the Court of \\'a[ds and an agrecment for sale, which has taken to thc Civil Court tbr a specitic pcrtbrntancc and allcgedly dccreed by the Court against thc alleged vendor ol the petitioner-rcspor)dcnts. Constructions arc said to have come up. but there is no clair.n on behall'of the petitioner-rcspondcnts thal thc)' cornplied with tlrc requiremcnts of the various provisions of thc [ lydcrabad Municipal Corporation Act. [Jnauthoriscci character of the occupation of'tltc lancl is not displaced bl thc nratciials which arc hrought on the rccord of the instant procer-ding and trnauthorised corlsl.ructioll is rvrit large, because provisions ol tlrc Ilydelabad Municipal Corporation Act are not cornplietl with. Reliel. rvhiclr this Court at such ajuncture can grant rvill be onll in thc nature of interinr injunction leaving the parlies to seck their rerncrh betirrc the appropriate civil Court. l,eamed singlc Judge, on thc lacts as stated abovc. has choscn to restrain the Govemment liom cr.ictinq thc petitioner-respondcnts and ior demolishing constrllctions b1 rcstrrling to the summary procodurc Under Section 6 ol'the Act and askcrl thc- Govemment to seek adjudication of title and cviction in the Cir,il Court. The order. thus, has the elfect of n,aking the appcllants to resign to the legal acts of the petitioner-rcspondcnts of conring up rvith the constructions upon the land, for which thc appellants havc a dcfinite and bona fide claim. In our considered vierv, thc bcst coursc. on thc lacts and in the circumstances of thc casc. wrruld bc to learc the dispute for adjudication by the Civil CoLrd \\'ithout there being any such condition of injunction in far<rur of thc pctitioncr- respondents, as injunction, ifany, can always be grantcd b1'the Clivil Courr if the petitionor-respondents establish a prin-ra lacic case and shorv balance of oonvenience in their lavour."

35. In B.N. Manga Devi v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (5 supra), this Cour-t held that: "-I'he cntrics in Town Survey Land Records itself cannot be considcrcd as conclusive proof of title or lack ol it. Entries in I SLR ?9 Dr-GRR.J (:CC.1 \'o-78 ol 2002 cannot. therefore. be lbuntainhead for doubting right. title and interest of an1' person in rospect ol any land."

36. Thus. thc cntries in Town Sulvev and Land Records cannot be considered as conclusive proof of title- and thc Governnrent cannot clairn titlc basing only u1-ror.r the entries in the 'fown Survey L.and Records Register and carrn,rt seck cviction of the respondent-p la in tifT by seeking a sumrrary proceclur e under Section (r of the Land Encroachrnent Act, i905 'lhe government ciulnot dccide such questiorl unilaterally rn its favour and evict any pers()n siurnrarilr, on the basis of such decisions. Duration ol occupation \vas a so reter,ant in the sense that a ner-son who is in occupation lor a propertl, oper-rly for a considerabie length of time can be prirna lacie considc-ecl as having a bonafide clairn over the prooerty. )7. 'l he i I;glr ('ourt ol' r\.P. in G. Satlana.rayana Govcrnment of lndia and others ((r supra) also held that .fhc " lhe pclitrrlncrs have claimed ou'nership o[ the land in respeci of a common propert) based on a compromisc decrce passed in petitioncrs havc traced their titie through O.S.No.1420/1r83. their grandmot rcr late Sultan Khatoon who has purchascd an e)itent ol'2i445 sq. n1trs. of land under registcrcd salc deed 932 of ,336 Fasli (1926). In O.S.No.1420/ 1983. compromise decree dated 2-12- [98i. uas otrtaincd by the pctitioncrs whereunder the propefty rvas partitionccl betr,'ecn them. 'l'hc procecdings under the 1905 z\ct rvere initiated onll b rsed on thc entry in the |SLR describing the [anC as G-Abadi. hr thc counter-affidavit. thc respondcnts have not dcniei the existence o1'rellistcred sale deed under which the petitioners grand mothcr has pLrrchascd the propert.v as lar back as thc year 1926. -10 ( t (.1 \o.7E of 200) 'I hey have also not disputed thc plea ofthe petitioners that lbr alnlost 90 ycars, their larnily has bcen in possession ofthc propcrt)'. Thc long standing unintcrrupted posscssion ol the petitioncrs lami[-"- raises I rcasonable presumption that the property in qucstion is a pririrte propcrty and thc same docs not lrelong to the Governnten[. SLrcir a presumption can be displaced by thc Government onl)' in a propc-rl1 constituted civil procceding. On thcsc undispLrted iircts of tlre case. thc ratio in thc -ludgment ol thc Suprernc Coun in Tunrmala Krishrra l{ao ()-supra) squarely' applies. fhe rcspondents cannot thcrcli)rc rcson to summarl,' proccedings of eviction under thc pror isions ol'lhe' 1905 Act as there is a bona llde disputc relating kr o'"vncrship ol'thc land. Iollowing the dicta laid down in Tumnrala Krishna Rao ( l - supra) and the finding rendered bl, this Court on Point No.4. the onh' option lcit r.l ith the respondents is to lilc a civil suit.'l'hc inrpugned procccdings are therclorc liable to bc quashed witl.r libertl n the rcspondcnts to approach the competent Civil Court. W.P.No.275tl9/20l-l: I,-rom the uncontrove(ed lacts rccortlcd in the carlicr part of thc .ludgmcnt. it is cvident that the onll' glound on rvhich eviction proccedings undcr thc I905 ,,\ct havc hccn issucd is that thc land is rccorded as G-Abadi in the fSLl{. Thc rcspondcnts lravc not denied the gonesis ol'the pctitioners title. There itrc as r]ranJ as lbur legistercd sale transactior.rs commcncing fiom I 7-6- I 959. l hc propcrt) was also tl.re subiect matter ol O. S.No.5 55/ l9li-5 $hercin a dccrec u'as passed on 26-9-1995 in iavour o1' Satyarlma and hcr' husband. thc prcdcccssors-in-titlc of the petitioners. Ihe long standing possessiorr ol the predecessors-intitle ol the pLliti()ucrs. at least liorn thc vear 1959. is not disputcd by the respontlents. In vic* o['thc finding on Point No.4. the respondents cannot initiate c\ icti()n procecdings under the provisions of 1905 Act only bascd on tho cntr). in thc 'fSI-R desoribing the land as G-Abadi. The irnpugncd proceedings arc liable to be quashed, however. liberty to thc rcspondcnts to approaoh the competcnt Civil Court tbr declaration ol titlc ol'the (iovernnrent over the land in question." "vith i8. The longstanding uninten-upted possession of the rcspondent- plaintilT raises reasonable presunrption that the property does not belong to thc govemment. Such a presumption can be displaced bi, the Government only by adducing proper evidence in proof of its title. 1'he appcllants cannot resort to the sumrnary proceedings of eviction under the provisions D..CRR,i (C(.1 \o 7E ofl002 ol 1905 Act. As such, the notice issued by the defendant N'os.1 and 2 to the piaintifT vicie rile No.C-2601/1997. dated 07.07.1997 can be declared as null and voirl. irr view of the longstanding possession o: the plaintilf established-tv hin- through thc docLrnrents markcd unde't Ex:;.Ai, Ai and A4, the registercd salc deeds as well as Municipal 'fax lece'ipts lilcd by hinr rrarkeci undcr' [:xs.A5 to A 10, the plaintifi is entitit'd t,r be granted conseclucntiai 1.rcl'pctual iniunction aa.ainst the appel lants-cic'l'en dants

39. With r eeard to the contention ol the def-endant that notice under Scction 80 or CPC \l,as not issued to liirl before liling the suit, the trial courl observccl lhat at the timc ot' filing ol the suit, the plainti['l'also filed a separate petition to dispensc rvith the issuancc ol notice under' Section 80 olClP('irnd that the said petition was allowed rurd the plaintifI was permitted to frie thc suit dispensing rvith issuance ol'nrttice under I Section 80 of CPC irr vierry of the urgencv pleaded by the piainti;1

40. In view ol'the leave granted by the court without service of notice under Section fiO ol CPC. it r'i as helcl that the suit is n-raintainable. This Court docs rtot tincl any illegality in the order of thc trial courl in making the said obse'vation. -l'he judgmer.rt of the lligh ('ourt of A.P. in State of A.P. and others v. Singanrsetty Yellananda (3 supta) also confirms the san.rc )l r.) Dl.CRR.i 4l . As such. point No.l is answered accordingly in favour of thc respondent-plainti fIas against thc appellants-det-endants.

42. POINT No.2: In vierv of thc latio of the judgrnents as extractcd above arrd thc evidence of the witnesscs and the documenls which werc slior,ving the longstanding possessior.r ol the plaintilt-, the trial court had not comnritted any crror in decrceing tl-re suit in favour olthe plaintiff. .+1. P0INI'No.3: ln tlre rcsult, the appcal is clisnrissecl conliruring the.ir"rdgnrent ancl decrec dated 10.0,i.1003 passed in O.S.No.l828 of 1997 b_v thc lcarnecl ll Senior Clivil Judgc, City Civil Court, Hyclerabad. No costs. Miscellancous r\pplications pending, i1'any, shall stand closed I I To, SD/. K. SREE RAMA MURTHY PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER

1. The ll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderaba 2. Two CCs to GP FOR APPEALS, High Court for the State of Telangana at with records, if any) Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri B. Ravi Kiran Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Kam/PSL Yx HIGH COURT DATED:09106t2025 c"1 trt t o 15$$ ,( DET; 1$h ,d.t)w JUDGMENT+ ]ECREE CCCA.No.78 of 2002 DISMISSING C)F THE APPEAL rrcoq?b 1 \(? - \6 . \1J -(rO\w \(,' I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 321s ] MONDAY. THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON,BLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 78 OF 2002 Between:

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by District Collector, Hyderabad.

2. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. AND R. Ramachandra Rao, S/o Hanumantha Rao, Age:57 years, Occ: Controller of APSRTC, Rlo.3-2-523 & 592, Rahathbagh, Kachiguda, Chappal Bazar, Hyderabad-27, A.P. ...RespondenUPlaintiff ...Appel lants/Defendants Appeal filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 10-04-2000 passed in O.S No.1B2B of 1997 on the file of the Court of the ll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad The appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds filed in the Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the record in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G. Tirupathi Reddy, GP FOR APPEALS for the Appellants and Sri B. Ravi Kiran Rao, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the appeal be and hereby is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 10-04-2003 passed in O.S.No.1828 of 1997 by the ll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this app SD/- K. SREE RAMA MURTHY DE UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// To,

1. 2. The ll Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad Two CD Copies SECTION OFFICER Vk HIGH COUR-T DATED:0910i12025 DECREE CCCA.No.78 of 2002 DISMISSING OF THE APPEAL ."N ,,d" &"rt'