HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 18703 of 2006 ORDER: The father of petitioners 1 to 4 by name Khaja Badruddin owned an extent of Ac.8.23 gts. of land in Sy.No.693 of Jangaon village abutting Ramagundam Municipality. Out of that, Ac.7.24 gts. was acquired for the benefit of Singareni Colleries by invoking the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, he entered into an agreement as regards remaining Ac.0.39 gts. of land with the Singareni Colleries. Alleging that Khaja Badruddin did not execute the sale deed, Singareni Colleries filed O.S.No.135 of 1975 in the Court of District Munsif, Sultanabad. The suit was decreed unopposed on 17/05/1975. The petitioners 1 to 4 state that though the decree was passed, it was not executed and the title remained with them after the death of their father Khaja Badruddin. They have claimed to have executed sale deeds in favour of petitioners 5 to 13 in respect of small bits of land out of Ac.0.39 gts. in Sy.No.693. The constructions are also said to have been made. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Municipal Council, Ramagundam, at the instance of the Singareni Colleries, is demolishing the structures raised by the petitioners 5 to 13. The respondents filed counter-affidavits opposing the claims made by the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality and the learned Standing Counsel for the Singareni Colleries/respondent No.4. It may be true, that the title in its entirety did not pass on to the Singareni Colleries in respect of Ac.0.39 gts. of land. It is also a matter of record that petitioners 5 to 13 have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.22468 of 1999 complaining that the sub- registrar is refusing to entertain the documents presented in respect of that land. Assuming that petitioners 1 to 4 executed sale deeds in favour of other petitioners, they would not be binding upon the Singareni Colleries in whose favour there existed a decree. Mere fact that the decree was not executed does not take away the rights. The record discloses that the father of the petitioners 1 to 4 admitted that possession of land was delivered to Singareni Colleries/4th respondent. In case, any third parties have encroached the land, the encroachments need to be removed duly following the procedure prescribed by law, though the encroachments may not derive any title in the teeth of the decree in O.S.No.135 of 1975. The authorities concerned, be it the Municipality or respondent No.4, have to initiate necessary procedure for recovery of possession. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing that respondents 2 and 4 shall not evict the petitioners in case they are in possession of any part of Ac.0.39 gts. of land in Sy.No.693, without following the procedure prescribed by law. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 16th June, 2010 SKM