J U D G M E N T The defendant in OS No.784 of 2002, on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool. This second appeal is filed aggrieved by the reversing judgment and Decree passed by the Court of the V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kurnool in AS No. 109 of 2003. 2. The respondent filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of the area marked as ‘CDEF’ in the plaint sketch. She pleaded that she was initially assigned a Plot No.62 (old 64) in Bapuji Nagar, Kurnool in the year 1977, and that she raised certain structures in an open area infront of the plot. It was alleged that the appellants who are the immediate neighbours on the northern side have raised an objection for that and two suits being OS No. 116 of 1995 and OS No. 196 of 1996 came to be filed in the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge in relation thereto. She pleaded that when her claim, vis-a-vis, the said portion of the land in front of her plot was not accepted by the Court, she approached the MRO for assignment of the same, and through proceedings dated 26-4-1999, he assigned the marked portion in her favour and despite the same, the appellants were interfering with her portion. 3. The appellants pleaded that in the earlier round of litigation the Courts have recorded a definite finding to the effect that the marked portion is part of the common lane, and after suffering judgment, the respondent managed to obtain a patta. It was also pleaded that grant of patta in respect of a portion, which was found to be part of lane does not confer any title on the respondent, nor disable them from using the lane for their convenience. 4. Through its judgment dated 29-8-2003, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed AS No. 109 of 2003. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal through its judgment dated 1-2-2005. 5. Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants, respondent and certain others were assigned equal sizes of plots in the locality in the year 1977, and it was the respondent alone that made an attempt to occupy part of the internal lane. 5. Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants, respondent and certain others were assigned equal sizes of plots in the locality in the year 1977, and it was the respondent alone that made an attempt to occupy part of the internal lane. He contends that the mother of the appellant filed OS No.116 of 1995 for removal of the structures raised by the respondent over part of the lane, whereas, respondent filed OS No. 196 of 1996 for the relief of injunction. He states that OS No. 116/95 was decreed and OS No. 196 of 1996 was dismissed through a common judgment dated 24-3-1999, and aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed AS Nos.48 of 1999 and 46 of 2001, before the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool which in turn were dismissed on 21-1-2002. It is urged that SA No.315 of 2002, before this Court against AS No.48 of 1999 was dismissed on 20-6-2002, and all through, the disputed portion was found to be part of lane. Learned Counsel contends that the so-called patta said to have been granted on 26-4-1999, was not brought to the notice of the lower appellate Court or this Court, in the earlier round of litigation, and that the respondent cannot rely upon it in later proceedings. 6. Sri Janardhan, learned Counsel appearing for J.V.M.V. Prasad, advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the scope of the earlier round of litigation was very limited viz., one for grant of injunction and the present suit is for a comprehensive relief. He contends that the rights of the respondent were not recognized in the earlier proceedings on account of the absence of any assignment of patta and once such a patta was granted, totally different consequences ensue. 7. The dispute between the parties is in relation to the portion marked as ‘CDEF’ in the plaint sketch, which is in front of the plot assigned to the petitioner in the year 1977. On an earlier occasion, when the respondent raised certain constructions in the disputed area, two suits came to be filed, one by the respondent and other against her. The appellants are the assignees of plot No.61, on the Northern side. A road is provided on the Eastern side of both the plots. On an earlier occasion, when the respondent raised certain constructions in the disputed area, two suits came to be filed, one by the respondent and other against her. The appellants are the assignees of plot No.61, on the Northern side. A road is provided on the Eastern side of both the plots. The disputed land is part of that road, in front of the plot assigned to the respondent. In OS.Nos.116 of 1995 and 196 of 1996, a clear and definite finding was recorded by the trial Court, to the effect that the portion is part of the common lane. That finding was upheld by the lower appellate Court, as well as this Court. 8. It is important to note that the judgment in the suits OS Nos-116 of 1995 and 196 of 1996 was rendered on 24-3-1999, whereas the assignment of that disputed land is said to have been made in favour of the respondent, two days thereafter i.e., on 26-4-1999. No attempt was made by the respondent to take the plea of assignment either in AS No.48 of 1999 and 46 of 2001 or in S.A. No.315 of 2002 filed, before this Court. The principle of constructive res judicata gets attracted, in the substantial suit. 9. Be that as it may, once the trial Court, lower appellate Court and this Court found that the disputed portion is part of a public lane, it was impermissible either for the Government or for any private person to assign or transfer part of the lane. To say the least, the MRO who had assigned the disputed portion in favour of the respondent through proceedings dated 26-4-1999, had grossly misused his powers and his action deserves to be deprecated. If such courses are permitted, the existence of roads itself becomes doubtful and it would lead to disastrous consequence. Bur for the fact that the MRO is not a party to the present proceedings, this Court would have considered the feasibility of proposing or indicating action against him. It is only the illegal, untenable and arbitrary action on the part of the MRO that has lead to this round of litigation. The lower appellate Court proceeded on the basis that with the assignment in favour of the respondent, she became the owner of the land which is part of the lane. Such an approach cannot be countenanced. It is only the illegal, untenable and arbitrary action on the part of the MRO that has lead to this round of litigation. The lower appellate Court proceeded on the basis that with the assignment in favour of the respondent, she became the owner of the land which is part of the lane. Such an approach cannot be countenanced. 10.The second appeal is accordingly allowed, and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are set aside. 11.The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this judgment to the Collector, Kurnool, so that he may take steps to prevent the assignment areas, which are already earmarked for roads or other public amenities. 12. There shall be no order as to costs. --X—