ORDER : Nyapathy Vijay, J. The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.3 in issuing notice dated 28.02.2025 under Sections 401, 405 and 406 of the A.P.Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 and consequently direct the Respondent-authorities to follow due process before evicting the Petitioner from the property bearing Dr.No.69-5-23/2, Sarvapuram Road, Gaigolupadu, Kakinada in Municipal Layout open space of LP.No.540/1983. 2. The Petitioner is a registered society under the Registration of Societies Act, 1860. A Church(shed) was constructed in plot admeasuring 417.11 sq. yards in Sy.No.205/1 (part) at Gaigolupadu, Kakinada. It is stated that the plot was given to Church by one Pydah Suryanarayana Murthy on free of cost and that the same was constructed in the year 1969 under the limits of Ramanayyapeta Gram Panchayat. It is stated that in the year 1983, a layout was prepared by the erstwhile owners including the property which was given to the Petitioner. - 3. While so, W.P.No.13730 of 2009 was filed by Respondent No.7 seeking a direction to Municipal-authorities to take action on illegal activities of encroachers of Respondent No.3 and the same was disposed of by order dated 24.01.2024 with a direction to Respondent-authorities to undertake survey and identify the open space in LP.No.540/83 in Sy.No.205/1 of Ramanayyapeta, V.S.Raju Colony, Gaigolupadu Junction, Kakinada and take further action accordingly. 4. Pursuant thereto, a survey was conducted by the Town Surveyor and it was opined that the Church (shed) was constructed by encroaching a municipal layout open space in LP.No.540/83. In view of the same, a notice was issued under Sections 401, 405, 406 of A.P.Municipal Corporation Act. 1994 on 28.02.2025 calling upon the Petitioner to remove the encroachment, failing which action will be initiated. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. It is the contention of the Petitioner that Sy.Nos.205/1 and 205/2 are Government properties and are vested with the Government by virtue of Land Ceiling proceedings in LCC.No.1548/KDA/75 and therefore, attempting to remove the Petitioner from the open space plot cannot be sustained. - 6. Learned standing counsel for the Corporation submits that there is no dispute to the fact that the Church (shed) was raised in an open space provided in LP.No.540/83 as confirmed by the Town Surveyor. - 6. Learned standing counsel for the Corporation submits that there is no dispute to the fact that the Church (shed) was raised in an open space provided in LP.No.540/83 as confirmed by the Town Surveyor. Learned standing counsel would contend that the issues raised in the writ petition cannot be gone into at this stage as in the light of the order of this Court in W.P.No.13760 of 2009, wherein action was directed to be taken as per the layout, it is not open to the Petitioner to agitate this issue. 7. Having heard the learned counsel, the following are the undisputed facts; (i) There is no document to establish that the land in question was donated to the Petitioner by the original owner at any point of time, (ii) Secondly, there is no dispute to the fact that the land in question was forming part of open space in the approved lay-out  in LP.No.540/83 as no plea was raised in the writ affidavit disputing the same, (iii) Thirdly, the suit O.S.No.824 of 2009 filed by the Petitioner against Respondent No.7 from interfering with the peaceful possession over the property in question was dismissed for default on 25.03.2014 by the II Additional Junior civil Judge, Kakinada. - 8. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel that the land in question is covered under the Land Ceiling proceedings cannot be sustained as nothing has been established to show that the land in question was surrendered to the Government as a consequence of land ceiling declaration at any point of time. Even otherwise, the Petitioner, who is a third party/trespasser to the property in question, cannot seek to continue in the land on the pretext of land ceiling proceedings. 9. The further contention regarding adverse possession appears to be misplaced. Firstly for the reason, that the initial plea of the petitioner is that the subject land was donated by the erstwhile owner of the property. A person claiming title to the property under a grant/gift cannot turn around and raise a plea of adverse possession as both pleas are mutually exclusive. Firstly for the reason, that the initial plea of the petitioner is that the subject land was donated by the erstwhile owner of the property. A person claiming title to the property under a grant/gift cannot turn around and raise a plea of adverse possession as both pleas are mutually exclusive. Secondly, the limitation for claiming adverse possession against the Respondent corporation/State is 30 years as per Article 111 and 112 of the Limitation Act and there is no plea as to from when the alleged possession became hostile /animus possidendi and to against whom it became hostile to claim right of adverse possession. - 10. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the impugned show cause notice and the writ petition is dismissed. No orders as to costs As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.