THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.925 OF 2011 Dated:17.10.2011 Between: Chilikuri Venkata Bhaskara Atchuta Ramayya Chowdary .. Appellant And The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by District Collector, East Godavari Rajahmundry and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.925 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The plaintiff is the appellant. The Second Appeal is filed against the reversing judgment and decree of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry in A.S.No.40 of 2008 dated 10.03.2010. The brief background of the case to the extent necessary is as follows. The father of the appellant filed declaration being L.C.C.No.2088/RJY/25 under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (the Land Reforms Act). The Land Reforms Tribunal (LRT) passed orders to the effect that the declarant holds surplus land. The father of the appellant then filed statement proposing to surrender Ac.3.22 cents (out of Acs.5.68 cents) in R.S.No.392/1 of Rajanagaram Village in Rajahmundry. The surrender was accepted in Form IX and Mandal Revenue Inspector, Rajahmundry, was directed to take possession of the land. The surplus was also assigned to seven landless poor persons. The appellant instituted O.S.No.55 of 2001 for injunction. He alleged that he has been in possession of the land and that there is threat of dispossession from the second defendant. The suit was opposed by the State inter alia contending that the land was already taken possession and delivered to the assignees. During trial, the plaintiff examined four witnesses and marked Exs.A1 to A3. The Mandal Revenue Officer deposed as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B9. The Deputy Mandal Revenue Officer deposed as D.W.2. Both of them deposed that the suit schedule property was already taken possession. The trial Court, however, came to the conclusion that there is no evidence of delivery of possession by metes and bounds and accordingly granted injunction. The appellate Court reversed the finding. The counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would contend that the first appellate Court failed to appreciate that there is ample evidence to show that the appellant is in possession of the property. He would also submit that when the plea of issuance of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was not taken, on that ground the appellant cannot be denied his relief. The issuance of notice to the Government under Section 80 of CPC is a condition precedent for filing a suit against the Government. The same cannot be waived. There is no dispute that the appellant did not give any notice under Section 80 of CPC and therefore the suit itself is not maintainable. Secondly, the appellate Court has found that there is evidence to show that delivery of possession was effected and it is for the appellant and the Government to mark out the actual area which is surplus. In that view of the matter, as held by the first appellate Court, the possession of the appellant cannot be treated as legal. The equitable remedy of granting injunction is intended to prevent legal injury to a person who is in lawful possession. It is not intended to protect a person who is not in legal possession. Admittedly, the petitioner’s father as declarant surrendered surplus land and therefore the petitioner’s possession over and above Acs.3.22 cents cannot be treated as legal. The first appellate Court in the considered opinion of this Court correctly appreciated the legal position. The Second Appeal is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 17.10.2011 KH