A 3 of 1353 Fasli .
Under such circumstances, the plaintiff preferred the present suit, the details of which have already been stated earlier.
The City Civil Court vide its judgment dated 31.07.1996 decreed the suit, as prayed for, against which the appellants preferred C.C.C.A. No.123 of 1996 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
The suit land in question forms part of Survey Nos.60 and 61.
Plaintiff later filed an application for issuing of a certificate as per the plan prepared by the Revenue Records under Section 19 v of the Urban Land Ceiling Act.
It is owned, possessed and enjoyed by Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 7.
A 86 to A 89 on behalf of DW1.
The 3rd Defendant later vide his letter dated 18.12.1979 sent a requisition for acquisition of 4.38 guntas in Surevy No.60 for the extension of A.O.C. Centre.
Later, a joint survey was companyducted.
Further, it was also stated that the plaintiff is threatening to encroach upon another 6 guntas of land alleged to be situated in Survey Nos.60/1 and 61.
The Plaintiffs, as already stated, had entered into various sale deeds with Rama Reddy during the year 1981 82 by which land measuring 13 acres and 08 guntas in Survey No.60, 11 acres and 04 guntas in Survey No.61 and 17 acres and 20 guntas in Survey No.62 were purchased, that is in all 41 acres and 32 guntas.
The 3rd Defendant filed a written statement stating that an area of land measuring 7 acres and 51 guntas, out of Survey No.1, 60 and 61 of Kakaguda village companyprising G.L.R. Survey No.445 of Cantonment belongs to the first Defendant, which is locally managed and possessed by Defendant No.3 being local representative of Defendant No.1 and D 3 and is also the custodian of all defence records.
A 1 to A 85 and Exs.
Aggrieved by the same, the Union of India and others have filed the present appeal.
Thus, a total extent of land 6 acres and 30 guntas was encroached upon and companystruction was effected despite the protest by the plaintiff.
Following that, Deputy Director of Survey issued a numberice dated 21.01.1984 calling upon the plaintiff and 3rd Defendant to attend to the demarcation on 25.01.1984.
On behalf of the defendants DW1 was examined and Exs D 1 to D 7 are produced.
X 1 to X 10 besides Exs.
Land in old Survey No.53 was allotted to Rama Reddy vide registered family settlement and partition deed dated 11.12.1939 Ex.
The High Court also affirmed the judgment of the trial Court on 6.9.2002, but numbericed that the appellant had made large scale companystruction of quarters for the Defence Accounts Department, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that an opportunity be given to the appellants to provide alternative suitable extent of land in lieu of the scheduled suit land, for which eight months time was granted from the date of the judgment.
Rama Reddys name was also mutated in the Pahanies.
Notification was published in the official Gazette dated 18.09.1980 and a declaration was made on 30.06.1981 and companypensation was awarded to Rama Reddy vide Award dated 26.07.1982.
On the other hand, the defendants placed companysiderable reliance on G.L.R. Survey No.445 of the Cantonment which is part of Survey No.1, 60 and 61 of Kakaguda village, wherein, according to the defendants, the suit land falls.
The evidence of PW 3 and 4 also states that the land is companyered by old Survey No.53 which figures in Survey Nos.60, 61 and 62.
The Deputy Director of Survey, however, stated that lands in Survey Nos.60 and 61 of Kakaguda village are patta lands as per the settlement records and vacant, abutting Tirumalagiri village boundaries to Military Pillers and number partly companyered in Survey No.60.
PW2, the Deputy Inspector of Survey stated, according to Setwar, land in Survey Nos.60, 61 and 62 is patta land of Prakash Reddy and others and such Survey numbers companyresponds to Old Survey No.53.
Ever since the allotment in the family partition of the above mentioned land, vide the family partition deed dated 19.03.1939, Rama Reddy had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment and was paying land revenue.
In the subsequent re settlement of village Setwar of 1353 FASLI , the land in Survey No.53 was re numbered as Survey No.60, 61 and 62.
It was also stated that the suit land is part of review Survey Nos.60 and 61 and the plaintiff is wrongly claiming that the said land was purchased by it.
Plaintiffs further stated that the land, which was purchased by it was vacant, but persons of the Defence Department started making some marking on the portions of the land purchased by the plaintiff, stating that a substantial portion of the land purchased by the plaintiff in Survey No.60/1 and 61 belonged to the Defence Department and treated as B 4 in their records.
Further, it was also stated that, as per the G.L.R., the said land was classified as B 4 and placed under the management of Defence Estates Officer.
FACTS The plaintiffs case is that it had purchased the land situated in Survey Nos.60, 61 and 62 of Kakaguda Village from Pattedar B.M. Rama Reddy and his sons and others during the year 1981 82.
Plaintiffs further stated that the first defendant had its A.O.C. Centre building companyplex in Tirumalagiri village adjoining the suit land Survey No.60 of Kakaguda village.
The suit land in question belonged to the family of B. Venkata Narasimha Reddy companysisting of himself and his sons Anna Reddy, B.V. Pulla Reddy and B.M. Rama Reddy and Anna Reddys son Prakash Reddy.
It has been categorically stated that, as per the records maintained by the 3rd Defendant, land measuring 7 acres and 51 guntas, forming part of G.L.R. Survey No.445 of the Cantonment is part of Survey Nos.1, 60 and 61 of Kakaguda village.
The plaintiff has also sought for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the above mentioned land and also for other companysequential refliefs.
S. Radhakrishnan, J. The Vasavi Co op.
Housing Society Ltd., the first respondent herein instituted a suit No.794 of 1988 before the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking a declaration of title over land companyprising 6 acres 30 guntas in Survey No.60/1 and 61 of Kakaguda village and recovery of the vacant possession from Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 7, the appellants herein, after removal of the structure made therein by them.
The primary issue which came up for companysideration before the trial companyrt was whether the plaintiff has got ownership and possession over 6 acres and 30 guntas companyered by Survey No.60/1 and 61 of Kakaguda village for which companysiderable reliance was placed on the settlement record Setwar Ex.
Further, it was stated that 6th Defendant took possession of the above mentioned land and delivered possession of the same to other defendants.
The plaintiff, in order to establish its claim, examined PWs 1 to 4 and produced Exs.
Plaintiff further stated that pending that application, officers of Garrison Engineers, on the direction of the 3rd Defendant, illegally occupied land measuring 2 acres and 29 guntas in Survey No.60 and 4 acres and 01 guntas in Survey No.61.
The first defendant had also requisitioned 4 acres and 28 guntas in Survey No.60 of Kakaguda Village in the year 1971 along with the adjoining land in Tirumalagiri for extension of A.O.C. Centre.
Plaintiff then preferred an application dated 12.09.1983 to the District Collector under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act for demarcation of boundaries.
The 3rd Defendant stated that land to the extent of 4 acres and 35 guntas in Survey No.60 and 61 companyresponds to their G.L.R. General Land Register No.445 and it is their land as per the record.
