THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 1287 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.36 of 1998 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kurnool confirming the judgment in O.S.No.293 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kurnool. The suit was one filed for permanent injunction restraining the appellants from causing interference with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. According to the case of the plaintiff, her husband has been in possession and enjoyment by doing some business in the schedule premises along with several others for more than 40 years and the 1st defendant, who is supposed to allot the site for construction of Kalyana Mandapam by Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam (for short ‘TTD’) and a writ petition was filed in this Court and the directions were given for assignment of the land in some other property. Some of the occupants were given the land out of 64 cents kept separately but the husband of the plaintiff was not given and after his death also the plaintiff made representations and on the other hand, on 26.05.1995 and 27.05.1995 the defendants started demolishing the premises, with the help of police and hence, the suit. The defendants contended that the plaintiff is an encroacher of the Government land. It was also further pleaded that the plaintiff is not a beneficiary to be entitled for allotment of the site as per the directions of this Court in the writ petition. Since all the petitioners therein were given some property out of 64 cents alleged interference with possession and enjoyment and the demolition are not true and highhanded demolition is not proved. According to the defendant, the hut of the plaintiff was removed on 26.05.1995, 27.05.1995 and 29.05.1995 along with other occupants and that after the demolition of the hut again erected the stones loosely and put the roofing and filed the present suit without any basis. After considering the rival contentions, the necessary issues have been framed for trial and on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A13. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-3. After considering the evidence on record, the Principal District Munsif, Kurnool decreed the said suit and as against that when the appeal was preferred, the appeal was also dismissed. The present appeal was filed raising the following substantial questions of law as to whether an injunction can be granted after initiation of the proceedings under the Land Encroachment Act and whether the plaintiff will the entitled for a relief of injunction without relief of declaration of title. POINTS: Evidently, the plaintiff also does not dispute about the fact that the Government is the owner of the property. The law is clearly well settled that even if the plaintiff is to be in possession of the property unlawfully, the defendant cannot highhandedly without recourse to the process of law dispossess the person in long possession and enjoyment of the property. It is also not in dispute that the husband of the plaintiff along with some other occupants of the property have approached this Court and this Court has also given protection and direction for assignment of the land to the eligible persons in the nearby property. Evidently, some of the occupants were said to have been given the site and the plaintiff or her husband were said to have been not given the said site as per the orders of this Court. The grievance on this account cannot be considered in this suit since this being only a suit for permanent injunction to protect the possession of the property. If at all, the plaintiff is eligible to get the assignment of the land and if it is not granted as per the directions of this Court or as per the right the plaintiff has to pursue the remedies otherwise. So far as the relief of injunction is concerned, the fact that the plaintiff was in possession of the property till 26.05.1995 was not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that there was a demolition of the property and according to the written statement of the defendants a temporary re- occupation of the property was done and temporary roof was put over the schedule property. But, however, the learned counsel for the plaintiff represents that the plaintiff is out of possession of the property as on date since already the TTD has opened a gate covering the suit schedule property and, therefore, there is no availability of the said property for enjoyment and there is alternative site suggested by the TTD by the gate which if allotted to the plaintiff will meet the requirement of the directions given by this Court. This can only be considered by the appellants on an application given by the plaintiff keeping in view of the directions of this Court. Therefore, so far as the matter stands now, since the plaintiff claims that there was no possession of the property though an attempt was made in the lower Courts that plaintiff was in continuous possession of the property, the contention of the appellant that the decree of injunction cannot be granted as the Government is the paramount owner, cannot be accepted. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, the Second Appeal has no merits and no serious legal aspect is involved to interfere with the judgment of the Courts below. But, however, the plaintiff is be at liberty to approach the Government for necessary reliefs, which were already directed to be given as per the judgment of this Court in the earlier writ petition. The plaintiff shall make an application with all the particulars to the District Collector and the concerned authorities within 60 days from the date of this judgment and the appellant shall consider the request of the plaintiff keeping in view of the directions of this Court and also allotment made to the other occupants of the property. With the above direction, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 12-10-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO SECOND APPEAL No. 1287 of 2003 DATE: 12-10-2011 MR