THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY S.A.No.1448 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The 2nd respondent is a cooperative housing society of the N.G.Os. of Kadapa District. It was allotted an extent of about Ac.78.00 of land for providing house sites to its members. The appellant was initially allotted a hose site. However, that is said to have been occupied by an M.R.O. Thereupon, the appellant was allotted about Ac.0.02 cents of land, which is part of children’s park. The 1st respondent, who was the former president of the society, filed O.S.No.477 of 1996 against the appellant and the 2nd respondent for the relief of injunction vis-à-vis the children’s park. The trial Court decreed the suit, through its judgment, dated 10.03.1998. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant field A.S.No.44 of 1998. The appeal was dismissed on 19.04.2002. Hence, the appellant filed the second appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant no doubt was allotted a plot by the 2nd respondent society. The same was found to have been occupied by another member. The 2nd respondent ought to have taken steps to evict such unauthorized occupant. However, the appellant was allotted a site carved out of children’s park. Complaining that such a course is impermissible, the 1st respondent filed the suit. The trial Court framed only one issue, viz., whether the injunction prayed for can be granted. The 1st respondent deposed as P.W.1 and no documentary evidence was adduced. On behalf of the appellant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were filed. The suit was decreed and the appeal filed against it was dismissed. The concerned local authority sanctioned lay out in respect of such a vast extent of land duly insisting on leaving of open spaces for different purposes. Children’s park was one such. In case, the plot allotted to the appellant was occupied by someone else, either the appellant or the 2nd respondent ought to have taken steps to evict the encroacher. Instead, they have chosen to carve out a plot from children’s park. Being a person interested in the society, the 1st respondent filed the suit and prayed for injunction. The trial Court has examined the entire record and arrived at a conclusion that public space cannot be converted into house plot. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and no question of law arises for consideration. Therefore, the second appeal is dismissed. It is however left open to the appellant either to seek refund of the amount paid by him with interest or for allotting alternative site. The 1st respondent shall be under obligation to extend either of the reliefs to the appellant, as and when claimed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 31.08.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY S.A.(sr).No.65988 of 2004 Date: 31.08.2010 JSU