UNGARALA AMRUTHAMMA Vs. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER APSEB OPERATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri. P.R. Prasad, the learned counsel representing appellant-plaintiff and the standing counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present Second Appeal:

(3.) Sri. P.R. Prasad, learned counsel representing the appellant, would maintain that it is no doubt true that in O.S.No.1762 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsiff, Nalgonda, the relief of recovery of possession of an extent of land admeasuring 301.7 Sq.yards with plot No.61 out of S.No.1473 situated at Arjaia Bhavi village, H/o Pangal of Nalgonda Revenue Mandal had been prayed for. But however the counsel would submit that in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, since even recovery of possession at this point of time may not serve any useful purpose, it would be just and convenient to order just and proper compensation in relation to the said property. The learned counsel also would maintain that this is a case where by the un-authorised action of the respondents the appellant is totally deprived of the property and thus the right to the property of the appellant-plaintiff is affected. The learned counsel had also taken this Court through the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also DW.1 and would submit that in the light of cross-examination of DW.1 the findings recorded by the Courts below that the respondents had erected the poles etc., occupying the whole of the land long prior to the sale in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, definitely cannot be sustained. The learned counsel had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record and findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the Appellate Court as well.