NO ADVERSE POSSESSION - It is well settled that irrespective of the nature and duration of possession, no person can derive any right vis-à-vis any road margin.


WRIT PETITION No.2483 of 2013

The petitioners claim to be the owners of shops bearing Nos.16/362 to 364 of Gandhi Road, Madanapalle, Chittoor District.  The property is said to have been acquired by their father through sale deed, dated 05-10-1980.  The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents issued notice, dated 22-01-2013, requiring them to vacate the premises, stating that it is an encroachment on the road margin on National Highway No.219.  The petitioners submit that the notice is untenable in as much as no part of their property is within the road margin. 

2.  The writ petition came for admission on 30-01-2013.  Initially, an interim order was passed and thereafter, a direction was issued to the respondents to furnish a copy of the sketch to the petitioners, depicting the road, together with its margin and nature of encroachment made by them.  In compliance with the same, the respondents have furnished copy of the sketch to the petitioners, indicating the portion of the road margin, encroached by them.
3.  Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 1 and 2, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Roads & Buildings for the 4th respondent.

4.  The petitioner is under the impression that the respondents are trying to demolish the shops, constructed within the premises purchased by their father.  However, the sketch prepared by the respondents, discloses that the demolitions are within the road margin.  It is well settled that irrespective of the nature and duration of possession, no person can derive any right vis-à-vis any road margin.

5.  Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.  It is, however, directed that in case, the petitioners are able to point out that in addition to the road margin encroached by them, they have got any own property by its side, it shall be open to the respondents to proceed against such portion, only after following due process of law.  There shall be no order as to costs.

6.  The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of. 

February 18, 2013.



Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.