Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
V C Sanyasi Raju, Vizianagaram ... vs The State Government Of Ap, ... on 28 September, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE No.: S.A.No.166 of 2017
PROCEEDING SHEET
S.
No DATE ORDER
41. 28.09.2022 Dr.VRKS,J
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant
and learned Government Pleader for Arbitration
for respondents.
Considered the material on record and the
same submissions made on both sides.
The second appeal is admitted on the
following substantial questions of law:
01. Whether the 1st Appellate Court on remand
failed to consider Ex.A30 and A31 in a proper
perspective and drawn an erroneous conclusion
that the suit schedule land is a Government
land?
02. Whether the 1st Appellate Court ought not
to have observed at Para 22 that by initiating the
provisions under Land Encroachment Act the
defendants got evicted on 28.01.1987 the
encroachers from suit site, in the light of the fact
that this Hon'ble court vide Orders dated
23.01.1987 granted two months time (Ex.A4)
and on the date of alleged eviction, there is a
restraining order operating against the
respondents passed by this Court?
03. Whether the 1st Appellate Court ought to
have observed that the provisions of the Land
Encroachment Act cannot be applied when there
is a genuine title dispute relating to the property
and the aggrieved party need to approaches Civil
court for claiming possession and further ought
to have observed that the defendants cannot
legally evict the persons in possession of the
property under Land Encroachment Act which is
summary in nature?
04. Whether the 1st Appellate Court to have
observed that Ex.A30 ie., Proceedings of the
Manager, Court of Wards, Salur Estate, Salur
dt.31.12.1952 in Rc.No.1366/1952 and Ex.A31
ie., Proceedings of District Collector, along with
enclosure in Rc.No.172/52-B1, dated
18.11.1952, being public documents issued by
the Board of Revenue and District Collector are
binding on the respondents and Appellate Court
ought to have observed that the respondents
cannot take a contra stand to that of Exs.A30
and Ex.A31?
5. Whether the 1st Appellate Court ought not
have observed that Xerox copies are only marked
under Exs.A30 and A31 in the light of the fact
that the originals which were marked before this
Hon'ble Court were found missing in the transit
which was duly recorded by the 1st Appellate
Court in its Judgment at Para 12?
6. Whether the 1st Appellate Court ought not to
have observed that Exs.A30 and A31 did not
improve the case of the appellant in Para 25 of
the Judgment in the light of the fact those
documents were issued by the highest Revenue
Officials which were not denied by the
respondents/ defendants during enquiry before
the 1st Appellate Court?
7. Whether the 1st Appellate Court ought to
have taken into consideration Ex.A30 and
Ex.A31 in toto in the light of the fact that those
were issued by the highest Revenue officials
indicating that the property is a private property
and in the light of the fact that those were not
denied by the respondents/defendants and
when those were marked before this Court
during the proceedings in SAMP No.3128 of 2008
in S.A.No.297 of 2001 as well as enquiry before
the 1st Appellate Court when Pw.3 was
examined and cross examined?
8. Whether the 1st Appellate Court ought to
have considered Exs.A30 and A31 in the light of
the provisions of Section 90 of the Indian
Evidence Act?
9. Whether the 1st Appellate Court ought to
have considered Ex.A1 ie., a letter issued by the
Asst.Manager, Court of Wards, Salur addressed
to the plaintiff dated 30.12.1952 wherein it was
specifically mentioned that the property of 31
cents known as "Gurrala Chowki" is belonging to
the plaintiff and was hand over to him?
10. Whether the 1st Appellate Court failed to
consider that the evidence of appellants ie., Pw.1
and Pw.3 as well as Ex.A1 to A29 and further
failed to observe that the documents marked on
behalf of the defendants vide Ex.AB1 to B14 has
no relevance at all and more over the 1st
Appellate Court ought to have observed that the
B1 to B14 went contra to Ex.A1 as well as
Ex.A30 and A31?
For hearing the second appeal, list the matter
after eight (8) weeks.
Call for lower court records.
___________
Dr.VRKS,J
KLNS
