THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.1256 OF 2011 DT.03-12-2011 Between: Sayyed Tajunnisa … Appellant And Government of AP rep by the District Collector, Guntur & another. … Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Sri J.Prabhakar Counsel for respondent: Sri The Court made the following JUDGMENT: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.1256 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the plaintiff filed this appeal aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 20-07-2011 in A.S.No.9 of 2010, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Repalle wherein the learned Judge confirmed the Judgment and Decree dated 29-01-2010 in O.S.No.347 of 2007, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle. Earlier the appellant along with two others filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.25 of 1986, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Magistrate, Repalle seeking permanent injunction against the Mandal Revenue Officer as well as the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its District Collector, Guntur and the said Court by Judgment and Decree dated 3-6-1996 decreed the suit directing the defendants not to interfere with their possession till they are evicted under due process of law. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent herein issued a notice dated 17-08-2007 under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act to show cause as to why the appellant herein Sayyad Tajunnisa shall not be evicted under the Act. Questioning the said notice dated 17-08-2007 received under the Land Acquisition Act, suit O.S.No.347 of 2007 was filed to declare the said notice as null and void and for a consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The said suit was dismissed on the ground that admittedly the appellant/plaintiff did not dispute the ownership of the said property and the said land is government poramboke and belongs to the Government and the ownership of the government is not disputed. Therefore, the trial Court held that if the Government land is encroached by any encroacher, it is open for the revenue authorities to remove the encroachers. No order as such had been passed under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, but issuance of the notice alone was questioned. Admittedly, the plaintiff has no right and title and in fact the title and the ownership of the Government was accepted. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the trial Court rightly dismissed the suit, which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and in the absence of any claim of independent right and title, it cannot be said that the impugned proceedings initiated under the Land encroachment are null and void. Therefore, I do not see any substantial question of law that arise for consideration in this Second Appeal. However, it is made clear that the findings recorded by the trial Court and the appellate Court as well as this Court relates to validity and legality of issuance of notice under Section 7 alone. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ V. ESWARAIAH,J DATE:03-12-2011 grk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.1256 OF 2011 DT.03-12-2011