HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL No.135 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellants are defendants 1 to 6 in the suit filed by respondents 1 to 5 herein in O.S.No.l68 of 3005 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. The said suit was filed against the appellants and respondents 6 and 7 herein for the reliefs of recovery of suit schedule ‘A” and ‘B’ properties after removing the unauthorised structures thereon and after evicting the defendants; for payment of past profits by way of the damages; and also for consequential permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed by judgment, dated 29.09.2008, against which, the appellants herein filed A.S.No.326 of 2008 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and the learned District Judge by his judgment, dated 01.11.2010 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the Second Appeal is filed contending that the judgments of both the Courts below are unsustainable and the relief claimed in the present suit is barred by res judicata in view of the earlier decree obtained by the plaintiffs under Exs.A-3 and A-4 and that the land in question is an assigned land in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 by the Government and therefore, suit is not maintainable in a civil Court when there is violation of provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. I have heard the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The case of the plaintiffs is that plot Nos.11A and 11B of Mulagada Village of Visakhapatnam District were assigned by the Government to plaintiffs 1 and 2 as they are landless poor, vide proceedings dated 28.10.1978 and they have constructed pucca houses in a portion of the land keeping vacant some more portion; that portion of the land in schedule A and B of plaint, which is shown as A,B,C,D and C,D,E,F was encroached by Eduru Mahalakshmi and Palla Appalanarasamma-first defendant and that the first defendant-the first appellant herein and the second appellant herein raised thatched huts in the year 1983. Therefore, plaintiffs 1 and 2 filed the suit O.S.No.490 of 1985 on the file of the II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Visakhapatnam and the trial Court dismissed the said suit, against which, A.S.No.156 of 1990 was filed on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, which was allowed by vide judgment, dated 20.11.1992, under Ex.A-4. The Second Appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the High Court under Ex.A-5. There is no dispute that the plaintiffs are the original assignees and therefore, they have got a vested right and interest to enjoy the said property which is inheritable, but not alienable. As the encroachment by the defendants was established without any authority of law, the trial Judge decreed the suit and also awarded Rs.36,000/- towards past profits by way of damages from 01.02.2002 to 31.01.2005 and also granted permanent injunction. As against the same, the defendants preferred an appeal and the lower appellate Court re-appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and all the contentions raised therein have been considered and rejected stating that in fact, the questions raised by the learned counsel for the defendants have not been raised before the trial Judge, and held that the trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence and accordingly, dismissed the said appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the present Second Appeal is filed. I am of the opinion that the land in question being the assigned land, as a matter of fact, it is the duty of the Government to protect the rights of the assignees by evicting the encroachers and re-alienating the land in favour of the original assignees. The said contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that the present suit is barred by res judicata was rightly negatived by both the Courts below. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any substantial question of law to admit this Second Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, the appellants are granted time for evicting and handing over the suit schedule properties to the plaintiffs, as per the decree, by the end of March 2011, subject to payment of entire decretal amount and costs, if any. ______________________ JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH 18th February, 2011 DR