IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD SECOND APPEAL No.1057 OF 2001 Between: The APSRTC ..... Appellant And Farooq Ali …Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD SECOND APPEAL No.1057 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Though the respondent is not served with the notice after the Second Appeal, the Second Appeal is being and has to be disposed of on identical lines as S.A.No.783 of 2001, disposed of by the judgment, dated 28.10.2010, involving identical questions of fact and law. Like in the other case, the same questions are sought to be raised in the present Second Appeal against the first Appellate Court’s judgment and decree and the conclusions on identical evidence by the trial and the first Appellate Courts are not to be interfered with for the same reasons adopted in the judgment in S.A.No.783 of 2001. 3. However, like in the other case, the trial and the first Appellate Courts have left open the question of entitlement of the Government or the Municipal Corporation to take steps for dispossession of the plaintiff from the subject property on the ground of his being an encroacher for which purposes, the appellant corporation could approach the Government and the Municipal Corporation for appropriate action in this regard. Therefore, the judgments of the trial and the first Appellate Courts herein also should be understood as not precluding such option and not making unavailable such liberty to the appellant Corporation to take such steps. 4. Subject to such observation, the Second Appeal otherwise does not raise any substantial questions of law and has to fail. 5. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 12th November, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD SECOND APPEAL No.1057 OF 2001 November 12, 2010. KL