Under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, a Mandatory Injunction can be sought to direct the defendants to demolish illegal temporary structures (huts) and restore the status quo, alongside a Permanent Injunction to restrain future entry.Civil courts are generally conservative. If trespassers argue that they have been occupying the land continuously (as they lied to the police), courts often treat the dispute as a loss of possession, which requires a Suit for Possession under Section 5 or 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

File a Suit for Mandatory Injunction (to clear the huts) and Permanent Injunction, accompanied by an Interlocutory Application (IA) under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of CPC for a temporary injunction and immediate Police Aid (under Section 151 CPC),  you may also add an alternative prayer for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act (which applies to dispossession without consent within 6 months and does not involve long title trials).

You can file the civil suit naming the primary trespasser (the 2018 offender) and add "Unknown Trespassers / Squatters" as co-defendants.

File an IA along with your suit requesting the court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property to record physical features (presence of huts, current occupants, condition of demolished walls), identify the occupants on-site, and submit a detailed report with local sketches/photos.

The Advocate Commissioner's report serves as neutral evidence for the judge. Based on this report confirming recent illegal encroachments, the court can grant Police Protection / Police Aid under Section 151 CPC directing the local Station House Officer (SHO) to assist in clearing the unauthorized huts.

Under Section 23 read with state rules (Telangana Rules Rule 21(3)), District Magistrates / Revenue Divisional Officers (RDO) acting as the Senior Citizens Maintenance Tribunal have summary eviction powers to protect the property rights of elderly citizens. While primarily aimed at family disputes, courts have upheld that Senior Citizen Tribunals can issue eviction orders and direct police protection when elderly citizens are illegally deprived of their property. This administrative route moves faster than a civil court trial.

Your advocate mentioned recovery of possession because the trespassers erected new huts in 2024 and claim long-term residence. Under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, if someone is in settled or open adverse possession for over 12 years, a simple injunction can become complicated, and courts sometimes lean toward a comprehensive title/possession suit.

/)to be completely safe against technical objections of "settled possession" by new squatters, a well-drafted suit praying for declaration of possession / mandatory injunction to remove structures is safer than just a basic injunction.

3)Filing an interlocutory application (IA) for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is the fastest way to create legally admissible evidence of the current ground reality (the newly erected huts and current occupants). The Commissioner visits the site, notes the physical features, takes photos/measurements, and submits a report to the court. This report neutralizes the false claims of "residing for two decades" and forms a solid basis for seeking interim police protection or mandatory status-quo orders.

1. Suit for Recovery of Possession vs. Mandatory Injunction

Given that the trespassers have constructed huts and are residing on your plot, you are effectively dispossessed, and the appropriate remedy is a suit for recovery of possession with a consequential injunction. The Supreme Court has held that a suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable when there is a substantial dispute over possession, as an equally efficacious remedy—a suit for possession—exists. While a mandatory injunction may suffice where only a minor encroachment exists, the presence of huts and habitation constitutes a clear dispossession. Your title is not in dispute, but the defendants’ possession is adverse; thus, you must seek a decree for delivery of possession. A mere injunction would only restrain future interference, not evict the current occupants. Filing a recovery suit, therefore, is the correct and safest legal route.

2. Suit Against Unknown Persons and Appointment of Advocate Commissioner

You may file a suit against “unknown persons” and simultaneously file an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a local investigation. The Commissioner will visit the site, identify the trespassers, note the nature and extent of the huts, and submit a report to the Court. This report will help the Court ascertain the true factual position and will be crucial evidence in your favour. Based on the Commissioner’s report and your title documents, the Court can grant a temporary injunction and also direct the police to provide protection for execution of the decree. This is a standard and effective procedure in encroachment cases.

3. Speedy Trial and Police Aid as a Senior Citizen

As an 80-year-old senior citizen, you are entitled to request priority hearing from the Court. Several High Courts have given precedence to cases involving senior citizens, and the Telangana High Court has also shown sensitivity to the age and health of litigants. In your plaint and interim applications, specifically mention your age and health issues and pray for early disposal. Additionally, the Court can, in its decree, specifically direct the police to render aid and protection for implementation of the eviction order. You should also file an application for police protection along with the main suit, so the Court can pass appropriate orders at the earliest.

Sir/Madam,

As a senior citizen, you will get the option of speedy trial, you are suggested to visit/write to Supdt of Police/SSP/DCP of the area and also to SDM regarding all the issues of trespass and it is sure that you will get the desired support in removing the trespassers. If you don't get support within 15 days of filing complaint, please file written criminal complaint with CJM/CMM asking direction to police to register FIR against the miscreants. Also, file application for survey by court commissioner and get the details of the trespassers. Only after getting the details, you will be able to file civil cases of injuction etc. In most of the cases, appropriate action by SDM resolves the issues.  

On these facts, I would not recommend filing only a suit for mandatory injunction with a temporary injunction. The safer and, ultimately, more effective course is to frame the civil action around recovery of possession of the portion presently occupied by the huts, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction for removal of the encroachments, with an application for interim protection and local inspection.
The key distinction is between the client's ownership of the entire plot and actual possession of the portion presently occupied by the hut dwellers.
1. Why recovery of possession should be included
The client's registered sale deed, ULC clearance, LRS/GHMC regularisation and long history of tax payments are strong documentary evidence of title. However, if third persons are presently occupying a portion of the plot and have erected huts there, it is difficult to maintain that the client is in actual physical possession of that particular portion.
The Supreme Court's formulation in Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy is directly relevant: where the plaintiff's title is not disputed but the plaintiff is not in possession, the remedy is a suit for possession, with injunction as a consequential relief. A mere injunction suit is appropriate where the plaintiff remains in lawful possession and faces interference or a threat of dispossession.
Therefore, I would structure the plaint as:
(a) Declaration of title — only if there is an actual cloud/dispute regarding title;
(b) Recovery of possession of the encroached portion;
(c) Permanent/prohibitory injunction restraining further interference, construction, creation of third-party rights, etc.;
(d) Mandatory injunction directing removal of the huts/structures and restoration of the plot; and
(e) Appropriate interim applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC.
If the defendants do not actually dispute the client's title, a separate declaration may not be necessary. The registered title can be pleaded and proved as the foundation for the possession relief. The important relief that should not be omitted is possession.
This is also consistent with the Specific Relief Act, which separately recognises recovery of specific immovable property under Section 5 and mandatory injunction under Section 39.

2. Do not rely upon mandatory injunction alone
The advocate's suggestion to include possession is therefore substantially correct, although I would not automatically add a declaration of title merely as a matter of form.
The plaint should make the chronology very clear:
Client purchased the property in 1992 → constructed compound wall/room → paid taxes → obtained ULC clearance → obtained GHMC/LRS regularisation → remained in possession → first attempted trespass in 2018 → FIR/charge-sheet → earlier injunction proceedings by the trespasser → suit dismissed for default → subsequent huts erected in 2024 → present occupants have no title or permission.
The 2018 FIR and charge-sheet are particularly valuable corroborative material, although the criminal case itself does not decide civil title.
The dismissal of the trespasser's injunction suit for default in 2023 is not the same as an adjudication on merits. Therefore, it should not be presented as though the civil court has already conclusively declared the client's title/possession. It can nevertheless be relied upon as part of the litigation history.
3. Can the present occupants be proceeded against even though their names are unknown?
Yes, but the pleadings and service have to be handled carefully.
I would not simply file a vague suit against "unknown persons" and expect the court to automatically grant police aid.
A better immediate strategy is to seek an Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC local investigation/commission for identification and documentation of the present occupants, particularly because the police themselves have recorded the occupants' assertion that they have allegedly been there for two decades.
The commissioner can document:
exact boundaries of the plot;
location and dimensions of each hut;
number of huts;
photographs;
names/identification details of persons found occupying them, to the extent possible;
nature of occupation;
whether the structures are temporary/permanent;
access points;
fencing/walls and signs of demolition;
present physical condition of the property.
But an important point: an Advocate Commissioner does not decide title or legal possession and his report does not itself authorise eviction or police action. His report is evidentiary assistance to the Court.
4. What should be sought in the interim application?
I would file the suit with multiple interim prayers, rather than merely asking for a generic temporary injunction.
The applications should seek, depending upon the evidence available:
First: restraint against the defendants from putting up any further construction, huts, fencing, structures or additions.
Second: restraint against alienating, transferring, inducting further persons or creating third-party interests.
Third: restraint against damaging the client's boundary wall, fencing or property.
Fourth: appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for immediate inspection/documentation.
Fifth: appropriate police protection/direction to prevent further interference with the property and to ensure compliance with any injunction order.
The prayer for immediate removal of existing huts at the interim stage is more difficult. An interim mandatory injunction effectively altering the existing position is granted cautiously and generally requires a particularly strong case. Therefore, I would make the final mandatory relief the principal prayer and seek interim protection/inspection first.
5. Police aid — important distinction
The police are not necessarily wrong when they say that they cannot simply evict persons from disputed property merely because the owner produces a sale deed. Police cannot ordinarily undertake a civil eviction exercise on their own.
However, once the competent civil court grants an appropriate injunction/order and there is evidence of its violation or threat to the plaintiff's possession, police protection can become an appropriate consequential remedy.
The Telangana High Court has recognised that police protection can be sought where there is an injunction and a prima facie case of its violation, although the power has to be exercised cautiously. A more recent Telangana High Court decision also recognises the relevance of police implementation of a subsisting civil-court order. 
Therefore, do not make the strategy "get an injunction and police will automatically evict them." Instead, seek a carefully drafted order directing the police to protect the plaintiff's possession and ensure that the court's order is not obstructed or violated.
6. Should another FIR be pursued?
Yes, the criminal remedy should be pursued parallel to, not instead of, the civil proceedings.
The present occupants' conduct should be placed before the police in a fresh, detailed written complaint with photographs, survey/plot documents and the chronology of the 2018 incident.
Since the alleged present trespass occurred after 1 July 2024, the applicable substantive criminal law is the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Section 329 deals with criminal trespass and house-trespass. 
The complaint should specifically distinguish the present occupants from the 2018 accused and state that the present complaint concerns fresh and continuing occupation/encroachment, not merely the old dispute.
If the police refuse to register/investigate despite disclosure of cognizable offences, the appropriate escalation should be considered through the statutory criminal procedure and, depending upon the exact facts, the jurisdictional Magistrate/High Court.
7. The "20 years' possession" story should be attacked immediately
This is actually one of the most important aspects of the case.
The police apparently say the occupants told them that they had been living there for two decades.
That assertion should not be left unanswered.
The civil pleadings should specifically state that:
The alleged occupants are strangers to the plaintiff, have no title, lease, licence, permission or other lawful right whatsoever, and their assertion of occupation for two decades is false and is specifically denied.
The client should assemble evidence showing the physical condition and possession of the plot over the years:
old photographs;
compound-wall photographs;
photograph of the demolished room;
electricity/water records, if any;
municipal/LRS records;
vacant-land tax receipts;
GHMC records;
survey records;
correspondence;
previous complaints;
FIR;
charge-sheet;
photographs from 2018 onwards;
photographs of the property before and after the huts appeared.
This is particularly important because an undocumented assertion of "20 years' possession" can potentially be used later to manufacture an adverse-possession story.
8. Senior citizen — seek priority, but don't rely upon a special shortcut
The client's age of 80 years should be prominently pleaded in the plaint and every interim application.
The application should specifically explain:
advanced age;
physical limitations;
prolonged interference since 2018;
continuing occupation;
inability to personally safeguard the property;
risk of further encroachment;
previous criminal proceedings;
previous civil litigation;
repeated approach to police;
recent Prajavani complaint and police inspection.
The court should be requested for expeditious hearing of the interim applications and early disposal of the suit, as appropriate.
However, I would not represent to the client that being a senior citizen automatically guarantees a summary decree or a fixed time for disposal. It is a factor supporting an application for priority/expeditious hearing, not a substitute for proving title and possession.
9. The best litigation structure in this particular case
I would therefore recommend the following sequence:
Immediately
1. Obtain certified copies of the 1992 registered sale deed, ULC clearance, LRS/GHMC regularisation and all municipal records.
2. Obtain the complete 2018 FIR and charge-sheet.
3. Obtain the plaint/order sheet and dismissal order in the 2018/2023 injunction litigation.
4. Collect old photographs and documentary evidence proving possession.
5. Photograph/video the entire property now, preferably with date/location metadata.
6. Send a detailed representation to the police concerning the present occupants and the fresh trespass/encroachment.
7. File a civil suit for recovery of possession + permanent injunction + mandatory injunction, with declaration only if the defendants actually raise a cloud over title.
8. Along with the suit, file applications for temporary injunction and appointment of Advocate Commissioner.
9. Seek a specific order preventing further construction, induction of additional occupants and creation of third-party rights.
10. Seek police protection in appropriately framed terms, particularly to prevent further interference and to implement/secure compliance with the court's order.

On the facts stated, I would not advise filing a simple suit for declaration of title, because the title does not appear to be under any genuine cloud. The registered sale deed, ULC clearance, LRS regularisation, tax records and long possession are all useful evidence of title and possession.

1. The important issue is present physical possession. If the hut occupants have actually occupied portions of the plot, the safer relief is recovery of possession coupled with mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. A mandatory injunction alone may be attacked as an attempt to obtain possession indirectly. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that where the plaintiff is out of possession, the appropriate consequential relief is possession; a bare injunction is insufficient.

If, however, the plaintiff can establish that he remains in legal/physical possession and the huts are merely recent encroachments/interference, a suit for mandatory injunction directing removal of the huts, along with permanent injunction, may be maintainable.

1. I would therefore not describe the occupants simply as "unknown persons" if they can be identified. File the suit against the persons presently occupying the huts, and, if their identities cannot initially be ascertained, seek appropriate directions for identification/service. An Advocate Commissioner can be sought under Order XXVI CPC to inspect the property, photograph/map the huts and record the physical condition and occupation. But a Commissioner is primarily for gathering/recording evidence; appointment of a Commissioner does not itself result in police eviction.

2. Along with the suit, seek an urgent interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC for:

• restraint against further construction, alteration or induction of new occupants;

• protection against further interference with the property;

• if legally justified on the pleadings and evidence, removal/restoration of recent encroachments; and

• police assistance for implementation of the court's interim/final order.

The previous 2018 FIR, charge-sheet, photographs, complaints, the earlier injunction suit and its dismissal for default can be important corroborative material. The 2023 dismissal, however, should be placed before the court transparently and its exact order examined.

1. Do not wait indefinitely for the police to register another FIR. If the present occupants have committed a cognizable offence, the appropriate criminal remedies can be pursued separately through the police hierarchy/Magistrate. But the quickest route to actual recovery of the land is ordinarily the civil court, because the police themselves are correctly cautious about evicting persons from immovable property merely on the basis of competing possession claims.

2. At age 80, the plaintiff should specifically seek expedited hearing on the ground of advanced age, continuing encroachment and the risk of irreversible changes to the property. Telangana has a dedicated senior-citizen framework under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act and the State Rules, although whether that mechanism can directly remove these particular third-party trespassers needs to be examined carefully; it should not be assumed that the Senior Citizens Tribunal is a substitute for the civil remedy.

In my view, the safest formulation is: suit for recovery of possession + mandatory injunction + permanent injunction, with an urgent Order XXXIX application and, if useful, an Order XXVI Commissioner application.

The crucial factual issue is whether the present hut occupants have actually dispossessed the owner from any portion of the plot. That determines whether "recovery of possession" is essential or whether mandatory injunction can realistically suffice.

Dear Client,

Since you have a registered 1992 sale deed, LRS regularisation, tax records, ULC clearance and an earlier FIR, you appear to have substantial documentary evidence of ownership. If you are still in possession, your lawyer may consider filing a mandatory injunction and police protection application, and an Advocate Commissioner may be requested to inspect the property and identify the present occupants. If you have actually lost physical possession of any portion, however, a recovery of possession suit may be necessary. 

You are advised to consult your advocate before taking any further legal step.

Thank you for contacting us, if you have any further queries kindly do not hesitate to contact again. Thankyou.

Yes you can do the above