P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, guntur first defendant in O. S. No. 314 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Subordinate judge, Guntur is the appellant. Respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal are the plaintiffs in the said suit and the 3rd respondent guntur Municipality represented by its commissioner is the 2nd defendant in the said suit. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 and 2 herein, the plaintiffs in the suit had instituted OS. No. 314 of 1982 on the file of Additional Subordinate judge, Guntur praying for the relief for possession of the suit schedule property free from obstruction from the appellant and the 3rd respondent in the appeal the defendants in the suit and also for damages for demolition of the building in the said site in a sum of Rs. 98,000/- and for interest on the said amount at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation and for the costs of the suit. ( 3 ) THE respondents 1 and 2 in the appeal the plaintiffs in the suit had pleaded as follows: The plaintiff is a registered body constituted for the purpose of running a chalivendram free water pendal for the benefit of the public. The plaintiff s office is in Eluru Bazaar, Guntur. The plaintiff body constitutes of ghee merchants who import ghee from the villages. The two managers under the incharge of the plaintiff have been managing the institution in 1974. The plaintiff thought of establishing a Chalivendram at the corner of Hindu College, Guntur where 4 main roads meet. The plaintiff applied to the District Collector for permanent assignment of site in T. S. No. 1, Block No. 1 of Agraharam, West Ward in Guntur for 2003 (3) ALD May 15th construction of a Charitable water shed. The District Collector inspected the site and after due enquiry sanctioned a site of an extent of 720 Sq. yards as per his order dated 2-4-1941 in D. Dis. No. 8796. The assignment was subject to four conditions. Subsequently as the plaintiff required more site had applied for the grant of site and the district Collector granted site and the total extent of site granted to the plaintiff was 840 sq. feet by the order dated 12-3-1982, in rc. No. 2441-42. No. 8796. The assignment was subject to four conditions. Subsequently as the plaintiff required more site had applied for the grant of site and the district Collector granted site and the total extent of site granted to the plaintiff was 840 sq. feet by the order dated 12-3-1982, in rc. No. 2441-42. As per the said order the defendant municipality delivered possession of the said site of 840 sq. feet. The plaintiff constructed Chalivendram at a cost of rs. 20,000/ -. Since then the plaintiff has been running a Chalivendram. The plaintiff located the water shed in the western portion right side and in the eastern portion ranor Pen works was located and the guntur Motor Taxi Drivers Co-operative society office was located in the other room. The defendant was paying Municipal taxes. Only to meet the expenses of the chalivendram, the plaintiff leased out the site and realising a sum of Rs. 200/- per month. The defendant Municipality demanded to hand over the site and threatened to evict the plaintiff from the building and gave them a notice to vacate the premises by 10th July, 1976. Then the plaintiff filed a suit O. S. No. 997/76 against the Municipality on the file of D. M. C. , guntur. The Municipality contested the suit and the suit was decreed. The New Section 14 introduced in the Land Encroachment act, 76, did not bar the jurisdiction of the civil Court. The Andhra Pradesh municipalities Act is not applicable to the suit property. The plaintiff has not violated the 4 conditions imposed by the Government. Even the Government cannot evict the plaintiff by executive action without going to the civil Court. On 28-8-82 at about 8 a. m. , the R. D. O. , Guntur with a large number of workers and Police demolished the entire building without any notice. The plaintiffs represented about the Decree and Judgment in O. S. 997/96. The R. D. O threatened to confiscate the timber. Subsequently, the r. D. O delivered the plaintiff and took a receipt. The same was sold for Rs. 5000/ -. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property. The defendants have no right to the suit site. The Government has not reserved any right to revoke the said grant at any time. Even assuming that there is such a reservation, the Government cannot unilaterally revoke the same. The same was sold for Rs. 5000/ -. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property. The defendants have no right to the suit site. The Government has not reserved any right to revoke the said grant at any time. Even assuming that there is such a reservation, the Government cannot unilaterally revoke the same. The building is worth Rs. 1 lakh. The Government is liable to pay damages for the destruction of the building and also to deliver possession of the schedule property. Hence, the suit is filed for possession and for damages. ( 4 ) THE appellants herein the defendant filed a written statement with the following allegations: The Government did not assign the plaint schedule property. The government agreed only sanction to the municipality to transfer the same to the plaintiff. The ownership of the property was not transferred. The plaintiff was permitted to run Chalivendram. The plaintiff violated the conditions. The entire building was let out. The construction was made in utter violation of the conditions of the allotment. The plaintiff encroached into the road portion and made construction. The Municipality requested the District Collector to resume the land as the conditions are not fulfilled. The Collector after issuing notice to the plaintiff passed necessary orders. The plaintiff did not give any notice. Hence, the defendants demolished the old structure. The structure was old and does not have any monetary value. It does not worth even rs. 10,000/ -. The plaintiff is not entitled for any possession. The Government is the true owner of the building. This Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of land Encroachment Act and also in view of the provisions of Section 192 of the A. P. Municipalities Act. The damaged claim is exaggerated. ( 5 ) THE 3rd respondent in the present appeal the 2nd defendant filed a written statement stating as follows: The plaintiff extended the building into the public road. When the encroachers were being removed the plaintiff filed O. S. No. 997/76 and obtained an injunction. This defendant did not make any representation to the 1st defendant on 26-8-82. This defendant is nothing to do with the demolition of the building. The defendant did not act contrary to the decree and judgment in OS no. 997/76. When the encroachers were being removed the plaintiff filed O. S. No. 997/76 and obtained an injunction. This defendant did not make any representation to the 1st defendant on 26-8-82. This defendant is nothing to do with the demolition of the building. The defendant did not act contrary to the decree and judgment in OS no. 997/76. ( 6 ) ON the strength of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the possession of the site prayed for?2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the compensation claimed for?3. Whether the site demolished is an encroachment as pleaded by 2nd defendant?4. To what relief? ( 7 ) SUBSEQUENT thereto the following additional issues were also had been framed:1. Whether the 1st defendant is entitled to demolish the building without giving reasonable opportunity to the plaintiff?2. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit ? ( 8 ) SUBSEQUENT thereto on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 the plaintiffs in the suit PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and likewise on behalf of the appellant as 1st defendant DWs. 1 and 2 were examined and no witnesses were examined on behalf of the 3rd respondent 2nd defendant and exs. A1 to A15 and Exs. Bl to B6 were marked. ( 9 ) THE trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, had decreed the suit partly for recovery of possession of site from the defendants in the suit with following measurements East 5 yards, South 6 yards, West 5 yards and north 6 yards adjacent to the Northern compound wall of Hindu College near the place of demolished building and also granted relief to a tune of Rs. 35,069/- towards damages for demolition of the building from the appellant-first defendant alone with subsequent interest at 6% per annum and with proportionate costs and however the suit as against the 2nd defendant municipality was dismissed relating to damages with costs. ( 10 ) THE 1 st defendant aggrieved by the said judgment and decree had preferred the present appeal. ( 11 ) SRI Gopal Das, learned Government pleader for Arbitration with a vehemence had made the following submissions: ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel pointed out that the very grant of permission had not been marked by respondents 1 and 2 the plaintiffs in the suit. ( 11 ) SRI Gopal Das, learned Government pleader for Arbitration with a vehemence had made the following submissions: ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel pointed out that the very grant of permission had not been marked by respondents 1 and 2 the plaintiffs in the suit. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that the documents exs. B-2 and B-6 had not been properly appreciated. The learned Counsel would further contend that Ex. B-5, the certified copy of the judgment in OS. No. 997/76 is not at all binding on the District Collector since it was the dispute between the plaintiffs and the Municipality. The learned Counsel also had contended that whether the question of issuance of notice under section 80 CPC is raised or not since no notice was issued under Section 80 C. P. C and the suit should have been dismissed on this ground. The learned Counsel placing strong reliance on Ex. B-2 had contended that for violation of conditions in the permission the said permission was duly cancelled by the District Collector and resumption was ordered. The learned counsel also had contended that the Civil court at any rate has no jurisdiction in view of Section 14 of A. P. Land Encroachment act. The learned Counsel also had contended that except the evidence of PW-2 and Ex. A- 8 absolutely there is no material placed relating to the quantum of damages and hence granting a decree on the strength of ex:a-8 alone is bad in law. ( 13 ) SRI A. Subash Chandra Bose the learned Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 plaintiffs in the suit had made the following submissions: ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel submitted that whatever may be the case of the plaintiffs the fact remains that the revenue authorities had not followed the procedure. It may be that Ex. ( 13 ) SRI A. Subash Chandra Bose the learned Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 plaintiffs in the suit had made the following submissions: ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel submitted that whatever may be the case of the plaintiffs the fact remains that the revenue authorities had not followed the procedure. It may be that Ex. B-2 order might have been passed by the District Collector, but however unless the procedure either under the Boards Standing Orders or the procedure under the A. P. Land Encroachment Act is followed there cannot be demolition of building or forcible dispossession and such acts on the part of the appellant Government undoubtedly are illegal acts and when that being so the Trial Court on appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence had arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession of the portion of the site and when the demolition was made without following the procedure, it is definitely an illegal demolition and hence the plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages and though the value of the building is something more the Trial Court simply relied on the evidence of PW-2 and Ex. A-8 and had restricted the relief to a tune of rs. 35,069/- only. The learned Counsel also had contended that the question of issuance of notice may not arise in a case of this nature, but however the non-issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC was not raised as a specific plea in the Trial Court and no issue was framed in this regard and hence it cannot be taken that the said ground has been waived by the Court and the government cannot be permitted to agitate the said question before the Appellate court. ( 15 ) HEARD both the Counsel and also perused both oral and documentary evidence available on record. ( 16 ) THE following points arise for consideration in this appeal: (A) Whether the appellant is entitled to demolish the building without giving opportunity to respondents 1 and 2 plaintiffs ? (B) Whether the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to the relief of possession and relief of compensation ? (C) Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit ? (D) Whether the plea of non-issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC can be raised for the first time at the appellate stage ? (B) Whether the respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to the relief of possession and relief of compensation ? (C) Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit ? (D) Whether the plea of non-issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC can be raised for the first time at the appellate stage ? and (E) If so, to what relief the appellant is entitled? ( 17 ) POINTS A and B can be dealt with together. Ex. A-5 is the certified copy of the judgment in OS. No. 997 of 1976 on the file of DMC, Guntur. No doubt, there is some controversy relating to the nature of permission which had been granted to the plaintiffs, but the fact remains that permission was granted and whether it is an assignment or whether it is only Government according sanction to Municipality to transfer the said site to the plaintiffs is not known. It is no doubt, that the specific stand was taken that the ownership of the property was not transferred and these plaintiffs were permitted to run the Chalivendram only and inasmuch as conditions were violated and in view of the request made by the municipality the District Collector had resumed the land for violation of the conditions. The site was granted by the government to the plaintiffs even in the year 1941 and the building was constructed in the year 1942 or 1943 and the same was demolished in the year 1982. It is no doubt true, that as can be seen from Ex. B-2 the district Collector had made an order of resumption for the reasons recorded therein. But the mere fact that the resumption was ordered or direction was issued to the subordinate revenue authorities to take possession may not mean the revenue authorities taking law into their own hands and proceeding with the demolition activity. Ex. B-6 is said to be office copy of the registered notice issued to the plaintiffs. Non sending of the notice either under certificate of posting or registered post is definitely a circumstance which may have to be taken note and the trial Court had recorded cogent and convincing reasons in this regard and had arrived at a conclusion that the authorities had not followed the procedure. It is no doubt true that under Ex. Non sending of the notice either under certificate of posting or registered post is definitely a circumstance which may have to be taken note and the trial Court had recorded cogent and convincing reasons in this regard and had arrived at a conclusion that the authorities had not followed the procedure. It is no doubt true that under Ex. B-2 the District collector, Guntur had requested the thasildar, Guntur to evict the grantee and take possession of the site in question immediately. But, that by itself may not be sufficient. The evidence of PW-1 and also dw-1 and DW-2 clearly throws light on this aspect. The evidence of PW-1 is elaborate, clear and categorical under what circumstances a demolition was made without following any procedure and inasmuch as this fact is not disputed both by PW-1 and also DWs-1 and 2, the oral evidence need not be discussed in detail. As for as the quantum of damage is concerned, on the appreciation of evidence of PW-1 and Ex- a-8 findings had been recorded and such findings need not be disturbed. ( 18 ) LN S. R. Ejaz v. T. N. Handloom weavers Co-operative Society Ltd. , (2002) 3 SCC 137 , the Supreme Court while dealing with the aspect of forcible dispossession it was held "if such actions by the mighty or powerful are condoned in democratic country, nobody would be safe nor can the citizens protect their properties. Law frowns upon such conduct. The Court awards legitimacy and legality only to possession taken in due course of law. If such actions are condoned, the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India or the legal rights would be given a go-by either by the authority or by rich and influential persons or by musclemen. Law of jungle will prevail and "might would be fight" instead of "right being might". In Govt. of a. P v. T. Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081 , the Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of the A. P. Land Encroachment act held that a person who is in an unauthorised occupation of the government land cannot be evicted summarily by government where complicated questions of title arise for decision. ( 19 ) HERE is a case where it is stated that the conditions of the grant had been violated, but however the grant had not been marked. ( 19 ) HERE is a case where it is stated that the conditions of the grant had been violated, but however the grant had not been marked. The fact remains that there was a prior dispute between the municipality and the plaintiffs in the suit and the documents relating to the same ex. A-1 to A-6 had been marked and hence in the light of the oral and documentary evidence inasmuch as on appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 and DW-1 and DW-2, decree for possession of a portion of the site had been granted and such findings need not be disturbed in the appeal, but however it is made clear that the authorities are entitled to initiate action in accordance with the procedure in this regard, if they are so advised. Point (c): ( 20 ) SECTION 14 of the A. P. Land encroachment Act reads as follows: 14. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Courts : No decision made or order passed or proceeding taken by any officer or authority or the State government under this Act, not being a decision, order or proceeding affecting the title to the land of a person, shall be called in question before a civil Court in any suit, application or other proceeding and no injunction shall be granted by any Court in respect of any proceeding taken or about to be taken by such officer or authority or State government in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. ( 21 ) LIKEWISE Section 192 of the A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965 dealing with removal of encroachments reads as follows: 192. Removal of encroachments : (1) The commissioner may cause to be removed or altered (a) any projection, encroachment or obstruction (other than a door, or gate or necessary access thereto, or bar or ground floor windows) situated against, or in front of such premises and in, or over any street; (b) any article whatsoever, hawked or exposed for sale in a public place or in any public street in contravention of the provisions of this Act, together with any vehicle, package, box or any other thing in or on which such article is placed. (2) If the owner or occupier of the premises proves that any such projection, encroachment or obstruction under clause (a) of sub-section (1) has existed for a period sufficient under the law of limitation to give any person a prescriptive title thereto or that it was erected or made with the permission or licence of any municipal authority duly empowered in that behalf, and that the period, if any, for which the permission or licence is valid has not expired, the council shall make reasonable compensation to every person who suffers damage by the removal or alteration of the same. (3) No decision made or order passed or proceeding taken by the Commissioner effecting removal of encroachments shall be called in question before a civil Court in any suit, application or other proceeding and no injunction shall be granted by any Court in respect of any proceeding taken by the commissioner. ( 22 ) SECTION 37 of the A. P. Municipalities Act, 1965 dealing with the vacant land belonging to the Government situated in the municipality to be in the possession or under the control of the council reads as follows: 37. Vacant lands belonging to Government situated in the municipality to be in the possession or under the control of the council : (1) On and from the date of the commencement of this Act, all vacant lands belonging to or under the control of the government situated within the local limits of a municipality shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) and to such conditions as may be prescribed, be deemed to be in the possession or under the control of the council concerned for purposes of this Act. Explanation :for the purpose of this section "vacant land" includes a poramboke, donka or kunta. (2) The council shall keep all such vacant lands free from encumbrances and shall restore the possession or control of any such land to the Government free of cost whenever it is required by the Government for their use for any public purpose or for purpose of alienation to any person or local authority. (2) The council shall keep all such vacant lands free from encumbrances and shall restore the possession or control of any such land to the Government free of cost whenever it is required by the Government for their use for any public purpose or for purpose of alienation to any person or local authority. (3) The council shall not (a) construct or permit the construction of any building or other structure on any such vacant land; (b) use or permit the construction of such vacant land for any permanent purpose; (c) alienate such vacant land to any third parry, unless the prior permission of the Government is obtained by the Council therefor, after furnishing such information as the government may require, including the usefulness of the land or any housing scheme; ( 23 ) HERE it is not a case where any order was made under the Land encroachment Act or it is not a case where the dispute is relating to the Encraochment because the constructions were there for sufficiently a long time and hence in the peculiar circumstances of the case the contention that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction cannot be accepted. It is made clear that since several factual aspects are not disputed the oral evidence of the parties are not dealt with in detail. Point (d) : ( 24 ) AS far as the non-issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC is concerned, no doubt a ground is raised in the appeal but no plea was raised and no issue was framed in the Trial Court and hence it can be said that the said plea had been waived by the Government and the Government having waived the said plea in the Trial court cannot be permitted to raise the plea at the stage of appeal. Point (e) : ( 25 ) IN view of the findings recorded above, inasmuch as the appellant is only entitled to follow the procedure and unless the procedure is followed the appellant is not entitled to resort to any forcible acts except in accordance with law, the findings recorded by the Trial Court need not be disturbed and accordingly the appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed. However, it is made clear, as already observed supra that the Government/appellant is at liberty to take appropriate steps as per the procedure, if it is so advised in this regard. However, it is made clear, as already observed supra that the Government/appellant is at liberty to take appropriate steps as per the procedure, if it is so advised in this regard. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court makes no order as to costs.