The State Archeological ... vs Vegasena Venkata ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3275 Tel

Telangana High Court

The State Archeological ... vs Vegasena Venkata ... on 21 March, 2025

 THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                       AND
      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

           WRIT APPEAL Nos.1639 and 1661 of 2017

COMMON JUDGMENT (Per Hon'ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara):

         Heard Ms. Divya Adepu, learned Special Government

Pleader attached to the office of the learned Advocate General for

the State of Telangana, appearing for the appellants, Sri Vedula

Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. K. Pradeep

Reddy,    learned counsel for    respondent   Nos.4   and   5   in

W.A.No.1639 of 2017, Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for M/s. Bharadwaj Associates for the

respondents in W.A.No.1661 of 2017. Perused the record.

2. The appeals are preferred by the appellants/respondents

aggrieved by the impugned common order dated 07.03.2017

passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.13810 and 16754

of 2008. In the said order, the appellants were directed to pay

costs of Rs.20,000/- to the respondents in each writ petition;

declared the action of writ appellant No.1 in constructing the

compound wall covering the land of the respondents in

Sy.No.318/1, situated in Gaddiannaram Village, Asmangadh,

Malakpet, Hyderabad, as illegal, violative of Article 300-A of the

Constitution of India, contrary to the orders passed by the P.A.

to Collector, Hyderabad District in No.B2/392/78,

dt.14.08.1980 as confirmed in Commissioner, Survey Settlement

Land Records, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in Revision Petition

Case No.R.O.R./1290/80 dt.14.09.1981 and the judgment of the

VII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad,

dt.14.10.1998 in O.S.No.3903 of 1986 and confirmed in

judgment dt.12.09.2000 in A.S.No.176 of 1999 on the file of the

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and consequently

directed writ appellant No.1 to demolish the compound wall

constructed by appellant No.1 over and above the land of

Ac.3.00 gts. covered by the Monument Mons, Raymonds Obelisk

(for short 'the subject land') and further directed the appellants

not to encroach upon the land of the respondents in

Sy.No.318/1, Gaddiannaram Village, Asmangadh, Malakpet,

Hyderabad.

3. The respondents filed the writ petitions with the following

prayers:

" to direct the Commissioner Survey and Land Records (2nd respondent) to survey the land of the State Archaeological Museums Department (1st respondent) and fix the boundaries as per the orders of the PA to the Collector, Hyderabad District in his order dt.14.08.1980 in B2/392/78 as confirmed by the

Commissioner, Survey Settlement Land Records in his order dt.14.09.1981 in Revision Petition No.ROR/1290/80 and further to direct the 1st respondent herein to demolish the compound wall constructed in deviation from the orders of the aforesaid authorities".

Brief facts:

4. The respondents in both the writ petitions are claiming to

be owners of land admeasuring Ac.3.00 gts. in Sy.No.318/1

Gaddi Annaram Village which was originally owned by H.E.H

The Nizam the VII (for short 'the Nizam') and was purchased by

Naseem Fatima and Saleema Fatima on 03.10.1964 and

02.09.1963 respectively. The respondents in W.A.No.1639 of

2017 purchased Ac.1.00 cts from Naseem Fatima on

20.08.1966, the said land was divided into six plots and five

plots were sold. Similarly, the respondents in W.A.No.1661 of

2017 are claiming different extent of land through their vendor

Saleema Fatima.

5. There is a history of proceedings before the revenue

authorities for rectification of entries to reflect the name of the

H.E.H. Nizam as the owner and possessor of land in

Sy.No.318/1 by deleting the term 'Sarkari'. The said proceedings

are orders of the PA to the Collector, Hyderabad District in his

order dt.14.08.1980 in B2/392/78 as confirmed by the

Commissioner, Survey Settlement Land Records in his order

dt.14.09.1981 in Revision Petition No.ROR/1290/80. The said

proceedings before the revenue authorities ended in favour of

the respondents in both the writ appeals. Consequently, the

name of the H.E.H. Nizam is reflected as owner of the land in

Sy.No.318/1.

6. Apart from the proceedings before the revenue

authorities, the respondents in W.A.No.1639 of 2017 have filed

O.S.No.3903 of 1986 seeking perpetual injunction against the

writ appellant No.1 with respect to land to an extent of Ac.1.00

gts. consisting of six house plots in Sy.No.318/1 of

Gaddiannaram Village and said suit was decreed by judgment

and decree dated 14.10.1998. Further, the appeal filed by writ

appellant No.1 challenging the judgment and decree passed by

the Civil Court in A.S.No.176 of 1999 has been dismissed by the

learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide judgment

dated 12.09.2000 and said judgment became final as the writ

appellant No.1 did not challenge the same by filing Second

Appeal.

7. Lastly, there was an attempt made to acquire the land in

question by the A.P.Electricity Board and the same was

challenged before the High Court in W.P.Nos.4950 and 5322 of

1986 and the respondents were granted with stay from

dispossession. In view of the culmination of all the proceedings

before various forums in their favour, the respondents in both

the writ appeals filed writ petitions seeking reliefs prayed for i.e.

survey of subject land to declare the construction of compound

wall around the subject land as illegal and to demolish the

same.

Contentions of the Appellants:

8. The case of the writ appellants is that the land in

question is an ancient monument existing in 3.73 hectares and

36 square meters of land as per extract of Town Survey Land

Register and said monument is listed in Gazette Notification

No.49/1/111/Archaeology/51, dated 12.01.1953 issued by the

Education Department (Archaeology). In said notification, the

monument is referred as 'Mons Raymonds Obelisk', 'Musa-Ram

Bagh (H) Suburb)' 'resting place of Michel Joachim Marie

Raymond, a French Officer who was originally in Tipu Sultan's

service but subsequently joined the Nizam's service' and that

'monument is well protected and maintained'. On the basis of

aforementioned documents, the writ appellants claim that the

land in question belongs to an ancient monument which is

notified as early as 1953 and has been well protected and

maintained ever since. According to the writ appellants, 3.73

hectares and 36 square meters approximately equals to Ac.7.28

gts. and the same is surrounded by compound wall protecting

the resting place of Raymonds Obelisk', Ann Janet Elizabeth

Jenkin, two dogs and a horse. Upon examining the case of the

rival parties, the learned Single Judge on the basis of the

findings given by the revenue authorities and the Civil Courts

allowed the writ petitions leading to filing of the present appeals.

9. The learned counsel for the writ appellants argued that

the prayer of the respondents is entirely civil in nature seeking

localization/identification of the respondents' land and that sale

deeds produced by the respondents do not show an

archaeological monument as one of the boundary.

Consequently, it is argued that the land of the respondents is

not within confines of the ancient monument whose walls were

in existence for more than 40 years and therefore, the

respondents are not entitled to the relief sought.

10. Referring to the judgment of the learned Single Judge,

reference is made to the observation that the boundary wall

"appears" to have been constructed in violation of the Civil

Court's judgment of permanent injunction in favour of the

respondents.

11. A reference is made to three sale deeds dated 27.06.1967

executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent Nos.2, 4

and 5 in W.A.No.1639 of 2017 coupled with rough sketch and

Deed of Release dated 24.06.1967 executed in favour of

respondent No.1 coupled with rough sketch. It is argued that

the sale deeds of the respondents in both writ appeals do not

disclose existence of any monument and therefore, there is no

cause of action for filing a writ petition. A perusal of said

documents, more particularly, Deed of Release, dated

24.06.1967 shows the northern boundary as 'Moosaram Plot

form and Monument'. The sale deeds dated 27.06.1967 show

the northern boundary as 'Tomb of Mosaremo' and 'Tomb area'.

12. The learned counsel for the writ appellants referred to the

definition of an ancient monument as referred in Section 3 of the

Telangana Ancient and Historical Monuments and

Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960, which reads as

under:

"All ancient and historical monuments and all archaeological sites and remains which have been

declared by the 8 [Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904 (Central Act 7 of 1904), or the Hyderabad Ancient Monuments Preservation Act (Hyderabad Act VIII of 1337 F.), to be protected monuments but which have not been declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance, shall be deemed to be ancient and historical monuments or archaeological sites and remains declared to be protected monuments or areas for the purposes of this Act".

13. The learned counsel for the appellants sought to negate

the findings of the revenue authorities alleging that the said

orders do not throw light on the boundaries of the land of the

respondents and also do not disclose the location of land owned

by them. Further, the judgment and decree of the civil Courts in

O.S.No.3903 of 1986 and A.S.No.176 of 1999 are sought to be

negated on the ground that said suit was filed seeking perpetual

injunction with respect to 1 Acre of land only, that too by the

respondents in W.A.No.1639 of 2017 only and that the writ

appellants in W.A.No.1661 of 2017 are not parties to the

proceedings before the civil Courts. Lastly, it is emphasized that

the entries in Telangana Survey Land Records (TSLR) and

Gazette notification of the year 1953 are completely ignored.

14. The learned counsel for the appellants referred to the

judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of

A.P. vs. Hyderabad Potteries Pvt. Ltd. and another 1, Palem

Chandra Shekar and others vs. Palem Bikshpathy and

others 2, E. Achuthan Nair vs. P. Narayanan Nair and

another 3, Mohan Pandey and another vs. Usha Rani Rajgaria

(Smt) and others 4 and Roshina T vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and

others 5 referring to contentions of various parties without

referring to findings of the Court. Therefore, said citations

cannot be of assistance to the writ appellants.

15. The respondents while filing the writ petitions have

sought re-survey of the land covered by the monuments which is

within the confines of a compound wall for which the writ

appellants have consented in their counter. However, the

learned Single Judge without ascertaining the location of the

land of the respondents has passed the order of demolition of

the compound wall in order to deliver possession of the land to

the respondents. In that context, the learned counsel for the

appellants referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India in the case between Union of India and others

AIR 2010 SC 2760

2019 SCC OnLine TS 3484

(1987) 4 SCC 71

(1992) 4 SCC 61

(2019) 2 SCC 329

vs. Dinesh Prasad 6, wherein, it is held that no relief to a party

can be granted on the grounds not taken in the writ petition and

it is not possible to grant relief beyond pleadings. Further,

learned counsel for the appellants referred to judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Rajeev

Mankotia vs. Secretary to the President of India and

others 7, wherein, it is held that it is the duty of the Union of

India and the State Governments to protect and preserve

ancient monuments. Said matter related to the Viceregal Lodge

as a protected monument included the land appurtenant to it. It

is argued that contrary to the finding given by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court of India in Rajeev Mankotia (7 supra), the

learned Single Judge directed to demolish the boundary wall

without enquiry and without survey. Lastly, the learned counsel

for the appellants relied upon the judgment of this Court in

W.A.No.484 of 2017, in the matter between the District

Collector, Hyderabad and Syed Jahangir, wherein, it is held as

follows:

"48. The issues involved in this appeal are the material questions which require to be decided on examination of evidence and on material documents and the same cannot be

(2012) 12 SCC 63

1997 (10) SCC 441

decided in the writ petition. These questions in our view were pure questions of facts and could be answered one way or the other by the competent civil court in properly constituted civil suit on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties but not on the documents filed in the writ jurisdiction. Further, the veracity of the said documents has to be examined as per the provisions of the Evidence Act.

49. Further, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not be available except where there is infringement of right of the persons by the action of the statutory authorities and this Court exercising power under the writ jurisdiction cannot decide the disputed questions as there is availability of remedy under the general law. In catena of judgments Supreme Court held that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to replace the remedy available to the person aggrieved by filing a civil suit. (see Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria 8 and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v.

B.D.Agarwal 9)".

Contentions of Respondents in W.A.No.1661 of 2017:

16. Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the respondents in W.A.No.1661 of 2017 referred

to the Telangana Ancient and Historical Monuments and

Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960 to emphasize that

the sections therein show that the State Government has power

to protect the monuments, declare certain structures as ancient

(1992) 4 SCC 61

(2003) 6 SCC 230

monuments, to acquire the monuments and their maintenance,

protection, etc., but does not give any scope for claiming

ownership. Learned Senior Counsel referred to the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the matter of Roma

Sonkar vs. Mahdya Pradesh State Public Service

Commission and another 10, wherein, it is held as follows:

"We have very serious reservations whether the Division Bench in an intra court appeal could have remitted a writ petition in the matter of moulding the relief. It is the exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench exercised the same jurisdiction. Only to avoid inconvenience to the litigants, another tier of screening by the Division Bench is provided in terms of the power of the High Court but that does not mean that the Single Judge is subordinate to the Division Bench. Being a writ proceeding, the Division Bench was called upon, in the intra court appeal, primarily and mostly to consider the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, in our view, the Division Bench needs to consider the appeal(s) on merits by deciding on the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, instead or remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge".

17. On the basis of above finding of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court of India, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

(2018) 17 SCC 106

respondents in W.A.No.1661 of 2017 argued that this Court

does not have jurisdiction to look into the merits of the order

passed by the learned Single Judge.

Contentions of Respondents in W.A.No.1639 of 2017:

18. Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the respondents in W.A.No.1639 of 2017 argued that the

documents relied upon by the writ appellants do not prove their

title and are also not of assistance in proving the extent of land

covered by the monument. It is argued that besides the Tombs

of Raymonds Obelisk, Ann Janet Elizabeth Jenkin, two dogs and

horse, there is an open land and said land belongs to the

respondents.

19. Learned counsel for respondents in W.A.No.1639 of 2017

while relying upon the arguments forwarded by the learned

senior counsel for the respondents in W.A.No.1661 of 2017

argued that the writ appellants have failed to prove their case

before the revenue authorities as well as Civil Courts and

therefore, cannot claim any relief in the present writ appeals. It

is argued that the order of the learned Single Judge is based on

findings of the revenue authorities as well as Civil Courts which

have categorically given findings in favour of the respondents

declaring them as owners of the land in Sy.No.318/1 on the

basis of entries in pahanies as well as registered sale deeds.

About the genuineness of entries in TSLR, the learned Senior

Counsel relied upon judgment of the High Court of Judicature,

Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the matter of Hyderabad

Potteries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector, Hyderabad District and

another 11, wherein, it is held as follows:

"A bare reading of scheme of the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 would make it clear that the survey made under the said Act is mainly intended for the purposes of identification of the lands and fixation of boundaries. There is no provision under the Act intending to make any detail enquiries with regard to the right, title and interest of the persons in the lands. It is neither the object nor the scheme of the said Act. There is no presumption that every entry made in the TSLR shall be presumed to be true until contrary is proved as in the case of entries made in me record of rights under the provisions of A.P. Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971. It is not a record of right. There is no such provision in the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923".

Findings of the Court:

20. Having perused the record, the oral arguments, written

arguments and the citations relied by the respective counsel for

2001 (3) ALT 200

the writ appellants and the respondents in both the writ

appeals, there are certain predominant points to be noted. The

first and foremost is that the subject property consists of

structures surrounded by a compound wall which is declared as

ancient monument. The Gazette notification dated 12.01.1953

shows the subject property as an ancient monument at Serial

No.23. When relief is sought by private parties for land housing

an ancient monument and for demolition of walls surrounding

the monument, the same requires certain amount of caution as

contended by the learned counsel for the writ appellants on the

basis of judgment in Rajeev Mankotia (7 supra), wherein it is

held that the State and Central Governments have a duty to

protect ancient monument. Accordingly, the State and Central

Governments are maintaining the same by constructing a

compound wall around the monuments. The photographs filed

by the writ appellants show that the ancient monument is

indeed well maintained with compound wall and flooring. The

photographs show the distinct structures being old as the

architecture clearly does not belong to present day construction

parlance.

21. The writ appellants resisted the attempts of the

respondents in both the writ petitions before the civil courts and

revenue authorities, but were unsuccessful in proving their case

on the basis of record. The revenue authorities gave finding in

favour of the HEH Nizam. The respondents in both the writ

petitions are tracing their title through their vendors Naseem

Fatima and Saleema Fatima. The sale deeds dated 27.06.1967

and Deed of Release dated 24.06.1967 clearly reflect that the

northern boundary of the alleged plots is the platform of a Tomb

or platform of ancient monument. The very description of

northern boundary shows that the ancient monument is on a

platform which is the northern boundary. The documents

produced by the respondents themselves show that there is

certain demarcation of the ancient monument in the form of a

platform. When the respondents in W.A.No.1639 of 2017

approached civil Court vide O.S.No.3903 of 1986, the burden of

proof is on them to prove that the writ appellants have

encroached into their land by exceeding the northern boundary

platform. There are no such pleadings or findings. Merely on the

basis of ownership allegedly proven through the registered sale

deeds emanating from the HEH Nizam and the subsequent

vendors, the Civil Court granted perpetual injunction in favour

of respondents in W.A.No.1639 of 2017. The suit was filed way

back in the year 1986 seeking perpetual injunction alleging that

the writ appellant No.1 is attempting to dig trenches in the

property of the respondents without title and they did not heed

to the resistance of the respondents and since the same is not

denied, perpetual injunction was granted.

22. According to the writ appellants, the compound wall had

been in existence for more than 40 years. While so, according to

the respondents in W.A.No.1639 of 2017, the writ appellant No.1

made attempts to dig trenches in the year 1986. When the

respondents opposed digging of trenches in the year 1986 when

there was no wall, a question arises as to why the respondents

did not seek relief to prevent the construction of wall by the writ

appellants after obtaining the decree of perpetual injunction. In

this regard, i.e. construction of compound wall around the

monument, the learned Single Judge in his order at paragraph

No.38 has held as follows:

"38. The contention in the counter affidavit filed on 17.04.2012 in W.P.No.13810 of 2008 that compound wall was constructed 40 years back, is a false contention because, if so, it should have been constructed by 1972. However, in the written statement filed by the 1st respondent in O.S.No.3903 of 1986, no such pleading was

raised. It was only stated that it was looking after the suit area with the help of servants by erecting boundary stones and by putting sign boards. If the compound wall had been in existence since 1972, the 1st respondent as defendant in the suit O.S.No.3903 of 1986, would not have omitted to mention it in the written statement. In fact in the said suit, it was clearly held that the "Raymond's Obelisk" was not located in the land claimed by the petitioners/plaintiffs therein. Thus it is clear that after the decision of the Civil court, the 1st respondent built the compound wall in gross violation of the perpetual injunction granted by the Court and the land belonging to the petitioners was grabbed highhandedly by it. Such conduct of the 1st respondent, a Government Department, is to be strongly deprecated and cannot be countenanced".

23. The above finding shows that the learned Single Judge

held that the contention of the writ appellants that the

compound wall was constructed 40 years back is a false

contention on the premise that the written statement filed by

respondent No.1 in O.S.No.3903 of 1986 has no such pleadings.

In this context, it is pertinent to note that existence or non-

existence of a wall has to be proven by the respondents in

W.A.No.1639 of 2017 who have approached the Civil Court vide

O.S.No.3903 of 1986, but not writ appellants. There is an

erroneous presumption that in case, the wall existed, the same

would have been mentioned in the written statement. Further, it

is held that the monument "Raymond's Obelisk" was not located

in the land claimed by the respondents. In case, the same was

true, the respondents herein would have no ground to seek

demolition of the compound wall.

24. There is a finding to the effect that the writ appellant

No.1 has built the compound wall in gross violation of the

perpetual injunction granted by the Court and the land

belonging to the respondents was highhandedly grabbed by

appellant No.1. The said finding does not stand to scrutiny for

the simple reason that when the respondents in W.A.No.1639 of

2017 approached the civil Court for remedy in the year 1986

when trenches were dug, nothing prevented them from

approaching a civil Court or the writ Court seeking appropriate

relief, in case, the compound wall was highhandedly constructed

at any point of time, in the interim between 1986 and 2008.

25. There is a finding given by the learned Single Judge with

respect to extent of the land covered by the monument as

follows at paragraph No.39 of the impugned order :

"39. Also in the suit, the 1st respondent had claimed that only Ac 3-00 cents had been given to the Archaeological Department for protection of the said monument. But now, it is contending in the counter affidavits that Ac 7-28

guntas is covered by compound wall. Neither for the Ac 3-00 guntas nor for Ac 7-28 guntas, is any scrap of paper filed by the 1st respondent to show that it was allotted to it by any authority. Thus it is not acting bonafide. It's action is highhanded and amounts to land grabbing without any right, title or interest therein".

26. The learned Single Judge erroneously held that the

appellant No.1 claimed Ac.3-00 cents was given to it

(Archaeological Department) for protection of the monument,

but is claiming Ac.7-28 gts. as being covered by compound wall

while filing counter in the writ petitions. The Town Survey Land

Records (TSLR) shows that the land belonging to the monument

is to an extent of 3.73 hectares and 36 square meters. Said

extent when converted into acres would be Ac.7-28 gts.

approximately. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that

the learned Single Judge erred in his assessment of extent of

land within the confines of the compound wall surrounding the

monument for the past 40 years due to error in reading the

extent of monument as mentioned in TSLR.

27. Learned senior counsel for the respondents in

W.A.No.1639 of 2017 has placed reliance on Hyderabad

Potteries Pvt. Ltd. (11 supra) to contend that entries made in

TSLR cannot be presumed to be true. Assuming for a moment

that the entries in TSLR are not true, the fact remains that Ac.7-

28 gts. of land is covered by a compound wall.

28. The burden of proof is clearly on the party which

approaches the Court seeking relief either before the Civil Court

or the Writ Court. The respondents in the writ appeals ought to

have filed a civil suit for identification of their property and

demolition of the compound wall. Alternatively, when they

approached the Writ Court seeking to demolish the compound

wall of an ancient monument, the respondents ought to have

filed conclusive documentary proof as to when the compound

wall came into existence and that their land is encroached.

Instead, the respondents have sought relief of Writ of Mandamus

to direct the writ appellant No.2 to survey the land and fix

boundaries as per orders of the P.A. to Collector, Hyderabad

District in No.B2/392/78, dt.14.08.1980 as confirmed in

Commissioner, Survey Settlement Land Records, Andhra

Pradesh, Hyderabad, in Revision Petition Case

No.R.O.R./1290/80 dt.14.09.1981. The prayer sought by the

respondents squarely attracts the legal ratio laid down by this

Court in W.A.No.484 of 2017 i.e. material questions which

require examination of evidence and documents cannot be

decided in a writ petition.

29. The very fact that the respondents in the writ petition

have sought survey of the land for the purpose of fixing

boundaries shows that they do not have any poof as to location

of their land on ground, more particularly, within confines of the

compound wall of the ancient monument. In this context, it is

also pertinent to note that the learned Single Judge exceeded

the prayer of the respondents who have sought survey of land

for the purpose of fixing boundaries and consequently sought

demolition of compound wall. While so, the learned Single Judge

without ordering survey has given a direction to demolish the

compound wall. The learned Single Judge failed to consider the

fact that the respondents in both the writ appeals did not

produce any documentary proof as to the location of their plots

within compound wall of the monument to seek demolition. In

the absence of documentary evidence to show the exact location

of the plots of the respondents, it is not possible to take up

demolition of compound wall as there are no details as to the

direction and location of the plots covered by the monument.

30. For the foregoing reasons, as per legal ratio laid down in

Roma Sonkar, when the correctness or otherwise of the order

passed by the learned Single Judge is examined, we are of the

considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Single

Judge is erroneous on three counts of non-existence of

compound wall for 40 years, its construction in violation of the

judgment passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.3903 of 1986 and

order to demolish the compound wall by exceeding the prayer of

survey sought by the respondents in both the writ appeals.

31. Thus, both the Writ Appeals are allowed and the

impugned common order of the learned Single Judge in

W.P.Nos.13810 and 16754 of 2008, dated 07.03.2017 is set

aside. However, this judgment will not come in the way of

respondents to avail the remedy available under the civil law, if

law so permits. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any,

stand disposed of.

___________________ SUJOY PAUL, ACJ

___________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date:21.03.2025 gvl