IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 453 of 2001 Between: Garlapati Shravan Kumar, S/o. G. Yadaiah, R/o. Maruti Nagar, Saroornagar Mandal, HYDERABAD. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, R.R. District, Lakdi-ka -Pul, Hyderabad. 2 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District. 3 The Station House Officer, P. S.Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the respondents to act in accordance with law and not to interefere with the possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner of the Plot of land covered by the Sale Deed No. 10402/91 dated 10.10.1991 contrary to the Decreed and judgement of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, East and North, Ranga Reddy District in O.SNo. 286/94 dt. 26-1-1997 and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.V.SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.453 OF 2001 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the Plot of land covered by Sale Deed No.10402/1991 dated 10.10.1991 contrary to the decree and Judgment of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, East and North, Ranga Reddy District, in O.S. No.286 of 1994 dated 26.01.1997. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that he is the owner of the Plot No.2 admeasuring 365 square yards in Survey No.1 of Kausalya Nagar, Pothamma Bagh, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same under Sale Deed No.10402/1991 dated 10.10.1991 from one Prakash Chincholkar. The petitioner states that he is able to trace the title in respect of this land back to 11.05.1957 on which date the late Nizam of Hyderabad, sold it to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have obtained building construction permission from the L.B.Nagar Municipality on 22.11.1993 but complains that he was prevented from going ahead with the construction by the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Saroornagar Mandal, second respondent in the writ petition, on the ground that the petitioner’s Plot was in Survey No.24 which was a Government land. The petitioner ﬁled a suit in O.S.No.286 of 1994 before the Principal District Munsif, East and North, Ranga Reddy District, seeking a perpetual injunction against the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Saroornagar. The said suit was decreed on 27.01.1997 and it is stated that the trial Court gave a ﬁnding to the eﬀect that the land covered by the petitioner’s sale deed dated 10.10.1991 falls in Survey No.1 and not in Survey No.24. The said Judgment is said to have become ﬁnal as no appeal was ﬁled against the same. It is further stated that the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, sought to allot the petitioner’s plot to one A.Renukamma, who had applied for a house site patta, constraining the petitioner to approach this Court by way of Writ Petition No.19124 of 2000. This Court granted interim stay in the said writ petition on 10.10.2000 and the same is said to be pending. The petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition complaining that in spite of his approaching the trial Court by way of E.P.No.216 of 2000 seeking implementation of the decree obtained by him in O.S.No.286 of 1994, the respondents continued to interfere with his possession and enjoyment over the subject Plot and prevented him from making construction thereupon. The Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, ﬁled a counter aﬃdavit stating that he never prevented the petitioner from making construction in Survey No.1. It is his case that the petitioner was resorting to construction activity in Survey No.24 which is a Government land under the protection of the Court order in O.S.No.286 of 1994. He admitted the fact that the District Munsif, presently designated as the Principal Junior Civil Judge, East and North, Ranga Reddy District, in the suit O.S.No.286 of 1994 gave a ﬁnding that the petitioner’s Plot is situated in Survey No.1 and not in Survey No.24. However, he disputes this factually and states that even as per the report submitted by the technical staﬀ, i.e., the Mandal Surveyor, the petitioner occupied the Plot in Survey No.24 and not in Survey No.1. According to the counter, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner prepared a lay out covering part of the Government land in Survey No.24 and executed sale deeds in respect of the Plots therein projecting that the same were situated in Survey No.1. According to the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, the petitioner is one such purchaser who, being under the impression that he had purchased a Plot in Survey No.1, was resorting to occupy the Government land in Survey No.24. It is his case that the petitioner trespassed into and occupied the Government land in Survey No.24 and the authorities are well within their right to interfere and stop such illegal activities in the Government land. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. Once the respondents admit to the fact that they were party to the litigation in O.S.No.286 of 1994 and they also admit that the Court gave a ﬁnding in the said suit that the subject Plot was situated in Survey No.1 and not in Survey No.24 of Kausalya Nagar, Pothamma Bagh, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, it is not open to them to take the law into their own hands and interfere with the possession of the petitioner. If the respondents were aggrieved by the ﬁndings in the Judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.286 of 1994, they ought to have carried the matter in appeal. Having allowed the said Judgment to become ﬁnal, it is no longer open to the respondents to dispute the situation of the petitioner’s Plot in Survey No.1. It is not the case of the respondents that they have got the land surveyed and demarcated so as to say with any certainty as to where Survey No.1 ends and where Survey No.24 begins. The petitioner, having approached the Court of competent jurisdiction and having obtained a decree of injunction against the Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, is well within his right to seek the protection of this Court against the interference with his possession and enjoyment by the respondent authorities. If the respondent authorities are in a position to ascertain and demonstrate that there is any encroachment of Government land, it is for them to take appropriate steps in that regard in accordance with the due procedure laid down by law. In the light of the ﬁnding given by a Court of competent jurisdiction against them, they cannot now state that the petitioner’s Plot is not in Survey No.1 but in Survey No.24 of Kausalya Nagar, Pothamma Bagh, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. There is thus, no authority in law for the respondents to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, without initiating action as per the procedure known to law. The writ petition is accordingly allowed directing the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over Plot No.2 in Survey No.1 of Kausalya Nagar, Pothamma Bagh, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District, without taking recourse to law. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ P.V.SANJAY KUMAR, J. 12th September, 2008. VGSR