IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5881 OF 2007 Between: D. Venkata Reddy .....PETITIONER AND The Competent Authority and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5881 OF 2007 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 11.05.2007, in C.M.A.No.118 of 2004, on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the order, dated 03.06.2004, in Proceedings No.344/CA1/99, passed by the competent authority, Central and South Divisions Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Gruhakalpa, M.J. Road, Hyderabad, directing the bailiff of that authority to execute the eviction order, dated, 25.11.2002, passed in C.A.No.344/CA1/99, on 17.06.2004 and submit compliance report to the Court, was confirmed. 2. Heard. 3. In the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can set aside or ignore the findings of fact of an inferior Court or Tribunal, if there was no evidence to justify a conclusion and if no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the Court or Tribunal has come to, or in other words, it is a finding which is perverse in law. Except to this limited extent, the High Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact. 4. A petition was filed by the respondents herein before the competent authority to evict the petitioner herein from the suit land, in which the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant. That petition was allowed. Challenging that order, the petitioner herein filed C.M.A.No.19 of 2000 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which was dismissed for default on 07.12.2002. It is not in dispute that the respondents - Housing Board filed a writ petition before this Court, wherein this Court directed to dispose of the plots by way of public auction, if the extent of land is more than 100 Square Yards. A notice was issued to the petitioner herein, to vacate the premises. Since the petitioner herein failed to vacate the premises, the competent authority vide order, dated 03.06.2004, duly entrusted the warrant to the bailiff of that authority to evict the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present appeal was filed, wherein the order of eviction was confirmed. Hence, this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is in possession of the suit land for a long time; that the petitioner is ready to pay the amount towards the costs of plot to the respondents - Housing Board; that the petitioner is not an unauthorized occupant of the disputed open area of land; that the petitioner perfected his title by adverse possession; that therefore, the proceedings of competent authority are liable to be set aside and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 6. The issue raised in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the petitioner has perfected his title by adverse possession? Since, the petitioner claims to be in continuous possession of the property for a longtime, the said issue cannot be decided exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The eviction order, dated 25.11.2002, passed by the competent authority is not under challenge in the present appeal. That order has become final, because when the decree and eviction order were passed on 31.12.1999 and 25.11.2002 respectively by the competent authority, the petitioner herein filed C.M.A.No.19 of 2000 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, and that appeal was dismissed for default on 07.12.2002. The order of eviction has become final. The proceedings, dated 03.06.2004, entrusting the warrant to the bailiff to evict the petitioner is only a consequential proceeding in pursuance of the eviction order, dated 25.11.2002. The said proceeding is completely in accordance with law. It is not shown to be perverse or contrary to law. Therefore, the petitioner is bound to vacate the premises as the order of eviction has attained finality. The first appellate Court rightly held that the petitioner has no locus standi to remain in the suit plot, once the order of eviction has become final. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J November 11, 2010 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5881 OF 2007 November 11, 2010