Sri A.Moses
Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool
PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool · Kurnool · Andhra Pradesh
Sri A.Moses, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, is posted at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh, India. 1,376 court orders on record since 2017. 26 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, EP, H cases.
Featured Judgments
1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KURNOOL.
Present:- Sri A.Moses, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of April, 2019.
O.S.No.90/2010 and its batch suits in
O.S.92/2010, O.S.No.94/2010,
O.S.No.96/2010 and O.S.No.476/2010
O.S.No.90/2010:
*** M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy (died) represented by his legal representatives
1) M.D.V.Rama Sarma
2) M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma
3) M.D.V.Madhava Krishna….Plaintiffs
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants
O.S.No.92/2010:
J.Satya Rangaiah…. Plaintiff
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants
O.S.No.94/2010:
K.Surendranath Reddy…. Plaintiff
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants 2
O.S.No.96/2010:
1) K.Ramakrishna Reddy (died) represented by his legal representatives plaintiffs 2 to 4 ***2) K.Lakshmi Devi ***3) K.Surendranatha Reddy ***4) K.Madhusudhana Reddy…. Plaintiffs (*** Impleaded as per Orders in I.A.NO.489/2017 dt.23.10.2017)
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants
O.S.No.476/2010:
1) T.M.Chowdamma
2) T.M.Ramesh
3) T.M.Jagadish
4) T.M.Anand Babu
5) T.M.Ranukamma
6) T.M.Manohar Babu
7) T.M.Aruna…. Plaintiffs
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants
These suits are coming up before me on 20.3.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.K.Vijaya Lakshmi, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Assistant
Government Pleader for Defendant No.1 and Government Pleader for Defendant
No.2 in all the batch suits, upon hearing both sides, after perusing the record and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:- 3
COMMON JUDGMENT
All the above suits are filed against the Government of India and
Government of Andhra Pradesh by different plaintiffs and the reliefs against the defendants are common and the survey numbers of the plaint schedule properties are also common. Both sides counsel filed a joint memo to conduct joint trial and to record evidence in O.S.No.90/2010. Accordingly, the evidence in O.S.No.90/2010 was recorded.
O.S.No.90/2010
This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.8,12,500/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
2.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently 4 after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
3.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
4.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah,
S/o Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
5.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masum”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
5
6.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
7.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy, S/o
Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam Sashtri,
3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind Babu, S/o
M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
8.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
9.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
6
10.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
11.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
12.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
13.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and 7 delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
14.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
15.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
16.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
17.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
8
18.On 25.1.2019 the following additional issues are framed:-
1) Whether oral partition took place during the life time of the plaintiff (M.D.Y.Rama Moorthy) and in that oral partition, the plaint schedule property was given right to look after the proceeding to the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and to receive compensation in the suit?
2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the living daughter and L.Rs of predeceased daughter of the plaintiff (M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy)?
O.S.No.92/2010
19.This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.8,12,500/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
20.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being 9 heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
21.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
22.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah,
S/o Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
23.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masoom”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
10
24.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
25.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy,
S/o Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam
Sashtri, 3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind
Babu, S/o M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
26.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
27.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
11
28.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
29.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
30.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
31.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and 12 delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
32.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
33.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
34.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
35.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
13
O.S.No.94/2010
36.This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
37.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
14
38.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
39.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah, S/o
Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
40.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masoom”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
41.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in 15 favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
42.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy,
S/o Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam
Sashtri, 3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind
Babu, S/o M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
43.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
44.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
45.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
16
46.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
47.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
48.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
17
49.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
50.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
51.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
52.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
18
O.S.No.96/2010
53.This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
54.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
19
55.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
56.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah, S/o
Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
57.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masoom”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
58.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in 20 favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
59.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy,
S/o Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam
Sashtri, 3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind
Babu, S/o M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
60.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
61.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
62.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
21
63.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
64.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
65.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
22
66.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
67.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
68.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
69.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
23
O.S.No.476/2010
70.This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.17,56,920/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
71.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
24
72.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
73.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah, S/o
Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
74.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masoom”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
75.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in 25 favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
76.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy,
S/o Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam
Sashtri, 3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind
Babu, S/o M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
77.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
78.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
79.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
26
80.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
81.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
82.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
27
83.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
84.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
85.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
86.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
28
87.To prove the case of the plaintiffs in all the suits, the first plaintiff in
O.S.No.90/2010 was examined as P.W.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.94/2010 was
examined as P.W.2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.92/2010 was examined as P.W.2. The 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.476/2010 was examined as P.W.4. P.W.5 is one Pinjari Ayya
Saheb is a 3rd party and one Y.Purushotham was examined as P.W.6. Thus, on the plaintiffs side P.Ws 1 to 6 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.26 are marked in all the suits. On the defendants side in all the suits D.Ws 1 to 4 are examined and Exs.B.1 to B.6 are marked on either side.
88.Issues 1 to 4 in all the suits in batch:- The burden of proving these issues are on the plaintiffs in all the suits. To prove the case of the plaintiff in
O.S.No.90/2010 he himself examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the entire plaint
contents as that of his evidence affidavit. He exhibited the following documents on behalf of the plaintiffs in all the above suits.
Ex.A.1 is office copy of legal notice; Ex.A.2 is registration extract of sale deed dt.20.5.1996; Ex.A.3 is registration extract of sale deed dt.4.1.1965; Ex.A.4 is registration extract of sale deed dt.7.8.1971; Ex.A.5 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.6 is registration extract of sale deed dt.19.6.1979; Ex.A.7 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.8 is registration extract of sale deed dt.19.6.1979; Ex.A.9 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981;
Ex.A.10 is partition deed dt.26.4.1984; Ex.A.11 is copy of Order dt.21.4.2009 passed in W.P.No.3474/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Ex.A.12 is office copy of representation dt.5.6.2009; Ex.A.13 is blue print copy of layout plan;
Ex.A.14 is copy of Award Notification No.511969 dt.28.3.1969; Ex.A.15 certified copy of registered sale deed dt.19.5.1995; Ex.A.16 registered sale deed dt.7.11.1984;
Ex.A.17 is registered sale deed dt.23.12.1993; Ex.A.18 is registered sale deed dt.21.1.2003; Ex.A.19 is registered sale deed dt.6.10.2004; Ex.A.20 is death certificate of T.M.Ramdas dt.26.8.2000; Ex.21 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.15.2.1968; Ex.A.22 is office copy of legal notice issued to defendant;
Ex.A.23 is postal receipt; Ex.A.24 is postal acknowledgment; Ex.A.25 is copy of layout plan and Ex.A.26 is Xerox copy of Award copy.
The plaintiff in O.S.No.94/2010 was examined as P.W.2, the plaintiff in
O.S.No.92/2010 was examined as P.W.3 and the 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.476/2010
was examined as P.W.4, all of them reiterated their respective plaint contents as that of their evidence affidavits.
29
P.W.5 is Pinjari Ayya Saheb, S/o Late P.Salam Miah who deposed that his father sold one acre out of Ac.2.26 cents to one T.M.Ramdas, husband of plaintiff in O.S.No.476/2010.
P.W.6 is one Y.Purushotham is a third party who deposed that his father
Y.Chinna Madanna sold Ac.1.90 cents to Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool in the year 1971. The National Highway Authority had not acquired Ac.1.90 cents of land under Award No.5/1969 that was passed on 28.3.1969.
This is all the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiffs in all the suits.
To prove the case of the defendants The Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit,
NHAI, Kurnool was examined as D.W.1 who reiterated the entire written statement contents as that of his evidence affidavit and denied the case of the plaintiffs and deposed that under D.2 the lands of plaintiffs were acquired and that payment of compensation does not arise. He exhibited the following documents:-
Ex.B.1 is Authorization letter; Exs.B.2 to B.9 are sketches; Ex.B.10 is proceedings; Ex.B.11 is acknowledgment proceedings; Ex.B.12 is proceedings;
Ex.B.13 is Award Proceedings; Ex.B.14 is Land Acquisition RCA/2017 dt.5.1.2018;
Ex.B.15 is RCC 13/2017 dt.6.1.2018 and Ex.B.16 is letter in L.Dis.No.A/34/2018 dt.12.1.2018.
D.W.2 N.Balu Naik, Mandal Surveyor, Tahasildar Office, Kallur deposed that he was directed by B.Pullaiah, Spl. Deputy Collector, NH-7, Kurnool to conduct survey in Sy.No.601 of Kallur village. Accordingly, he conducted and Exs.B.5 plans are drawn by him.
D.W.3 is one A.Sravan Kumar, working as Professional Technical who deposed and denied the entire case of the plaintiffs. He deposed that the sales of the plaintiffs are subsequent to award and they cannot be taken into consideration.
D.W.4 is one Venkata Chennaiah, Deputy Inspector of Surveyor, RDO,
Ananthapuram deposed that on the instructions of Tahasildar, he conducted survey in Sy.No.601/1B of Kallur village of Kallur village.
30
This is all the oral and documentary evidence on the defendants side in a nutshell.
89.On careful perusal of the evidence on either side the case of the plaintiffs in all the suits, their case is common and contended that they are the absolute owners of their respective plaint schedule properties, which are acquired by
National Highway Authority for laying four way lanes in the year 2008 and that they are claiming compensation.
90.The case of the defendants that the plaint schedule properties are not belonging to the plaintiff and they are National Highway properties which were acquired much earlier in the year 1969 while widening the roads by the then
Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition by awarding and giving compensation to the then land owners. So question of re-acquiring the same land in the year 2008 will not arise at all, and the question of awarding compensation will not arise at all.
91.The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 in his cross examination admitted that he filed Ex.A.2 to show that the land in Sy.No.601/1 the extent of Ac.7.96 cents belongs to Pinjari Masoom and others. He further deposed that what was acquired in the year 1969 by the Government was only Ac.0.94 cents in Sy.No.601/1 belongs to Pinjari Masoom. His predecessors in title did not raise any objection for the acquisition proceedings in the year 1969.
92.He further deposed in his cross examination that he filed Ex.A.2 to show that the land in Sy.No.601/1 belongs to Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan, Pinjari
Moulali and Pinjari Salam Miah. He has not filed any revenue record to show that they are the pattadars in 10 (1) Account and he admitted that in all the registered documents filed by him there is a recital that the pattadar pass books for the land in Sy.No.60/1 was not filed.
93.On examination of the evidence of P.W.1 it is an admitted fact by the plaintiff and their witnesses that some of the land was acquired in the year 1969 through Award No.5/1969. The burden lies on the plaintiffs that the land acquired in the year 1969 is not very same land shown in the plaint schedules of the batch suits.
31
94.The prime contention of the plaintiffs in all the suits that Pinjari Masoom had brothers, and the suit schedule properties belonged to all brothers and they were partitioned among them and they sold the same to the vendors of the plaintiffs and thereafter the plaintiffs purchased them through their vendors. The plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to show that there was a partition between the brothers of Pinjari Masoom and himself. When the plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence for partition as alleged both in their plaint the question of purchasing properties from their vendors does not arise.
95.On examination of the evidence of P.W.2 in his cross examination he admitted that the Government had acquired land of Ac.0.94 cents in Sy.No.601/1B from Pinjari Masoom in the year 1969. He further admitted that at the time of acquiring the land the Government paid compensation to Pinjari Masoom and the said compensation was paid in the year 1969 itself. He admitted that Pinjari
Masoom had handed over the possession of Ac.0.94 cents of land to the
Government in the year 1969 as per the Award No.5/1969. The brothers of Pinjari
Masoom or their predecessors in title did not submit any objections before the
Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer for awarding compensation to Pinjari Masoom.
96.The admissions made by P.W.3 is the same as that of P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.4 is that when they approached the 2nd defendant herein his staff had orally expressed that the plaint schedule land to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents which form part of the land was already acquired for the purpose of N.H.7 under Award
No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969. He further deposed that in fact what was acquired in
Sy.No.601/1B of Kallur Gram Panchayat was only Ac.0.94 cents. Pinjari Masoom alone was made claimant over the said portion of the land acquired.
97.P.W.5 deposed that in fact only the land of Ac.0.94 cents were acquired in the land acquisition proceedings under Award No.5/1969.
98.In the cross examination of P.W.1 he stated that he has not filed documents to show that the property belonged to Pinjari Masoom and his brothers and he did not file any document to show that Pinjari Masoom and his brothers have effected oral partition and that Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hasan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each while Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents towards the respective shares in oral partition. He do not know whether the said persons have 32 obtained separate pattadar pass books and title deeds for the lands allotted to their respective shares. He admitted that he did not file any document to show that
Sy.No.601/1 was sub-divided as Sy.No.601/1B after passing of the award and that only Ac.0.94 cents of land of Pinjari Masoom was acquired under the Award
No.5/1969.
99.On examination of the evidence of P.W.4 and in his cross examination he stated that he did not make any personal enquiry to find out whether the said
Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan, Pinjari Moulali and Pinjari Salama Miah are having any right or title over the disputed land. He did not file any document to show that the said four brothers are having any title over the disputed land. He do not know what are the other properties that were partitioned among the four brothers along with the land in the plaint schedule survey number as on the date of the oral partition effected among the said four brothers. His father purchased the property in the year 1968 after getting the land surveyed by competent Mandal
Surveyor. He cannot say the name of the Surveyor who did the survey. He did not file report of the Surveyor before the Court and he has not seen the report of the
Surveyor or its copy till date. He did not file copy of 10 (1) Adangal to show that the plaint schedule property was in the name of the vendors of his father till the purchase of the same by his father. He did not file any copy of adangal to show that his father possessed the property from 1968 to 1972. He did not get any survey conducted to show that the land acquired under Award under Ex.A.26.
Award copy in Award No.6/1969 is entirely different from the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.476/2010. He did not seek to appoint Advocate Commissioner to measure and locate the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.476/2010. Except his evidence he do not have any document to show that the land acquired under
Ex.A.26 is different from the property claimed by him. He did not issue any legal notice to the vendors of his father and did not met them after knowing about the acquisition of the land under Award in Ex.A.26.
100.On examination of the evidence of P.W.5 he deposed that he was the child at the time of execution of sale deed executed by his father and he do not know the details and measurements of the land sold by his father and the remaining land. Thus the evidence of P.W.5 is no way useful to prove the case of the plaintiffs.
33
101.In his cross examination he admitted that he was not present when the land was surveyed at request of other persons. He do not know any records regarding the acquisition of lands in the year 1969, and he has not seen the Award regarding the disputed survey number. He cannot say the particulars of the partition effected between him and his brothers.
102.So far as the evidence of P.W.6 is concerned he do not know the full details of the documents in favour of the plaintiff and he stated that the sale deed on behalf of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, might have been executed by Narappa and
Venkata Subbaiah. Thus, it is clear from his admission that he do not know anything about the properties. He did not file any document to show that the purchase of the property by his father and sale of the same property by his father to Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool. He did not file any copy of adangal pertaining to the suit schedule property before the Court. He did not secure any adangal for the said property and did not verify the same. He do not know how much extent of land was acquired under the said award, how much compensation was ordered to be paid under the said award. Thus, the evidence of P.W.6 is no way useful to prove the case of the plaintiff.
103.On examination of the evidence of plaintiffs coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.26 it is clear that they could not positively established the alleged oral partition and even that they are not aware of the alleged partition. The plaintiffs also failed to produce any evidence to show their vendors’ possession over the plaint schedule properties. The evidence of the plaintiff’s further clarifies that they never conducted any survey either before or after 1969 acquisition of land and even they never decided to conduct any survey by seeking permission of the Court in order to bring the material available point is on their side.
104.It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs approached the Hon’ble High Court and as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court the joint Collector passed orders and the plaintiffs have not preferred any appeal or revision against the said order dt.31.5.2009 and P.Ws 1 to 4 admitted the same in their cross examination.
105.P.W.2 clearly admitted that the Joint Collector passed orders on 31.5.2009 denying their claim on the ground that the Award was already passed earlier by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool. The Joint Collector passed orders stating that they constructed the shops illegally in the land of the Government and with 34 respect to eviction, and the Tahasildar was directed to evict them, and the
Tahasildar evicted them and handed over the possession to the National Highway
Authority and he did not file any Writ Petition against him for forcibly evicting him.
106.During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 died and after his death his sons only were brought on record as his legal heirs and also as plaintiffs. The defendants took objection raising that the deceased plaintiff is having daughters, by way of additional written statement. Then the added plaintiffs filed rejoinder accepting that the deceased plaintiff is having daughters but denied that they are not considerable as legal heirs stating that during the pendency of the suit an oral partition took place and the alleged plaint schedule property is fallen to their shares only. No evidence is produced to that effect. The plaintiffs did not choose to let in any evidence on the additional issues to prove their contention mentioned in the rejoinder. The newly added plaintiffs in O.S.No.90/2010 admitted that the deceased plaintiff is having daughters and with regard to the fact that whether the earlier partition was took place or not has to be proved by the newly added plaintiffs in O.S.No.90/2010.
107.In view of the foregoing reasons, I came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title over the respective schedule properties in all the above suits and the plaintiffs are not entitled for the compensation as prayed for.
108.Thus issue No.1 is held in favour of the plaintiffs as it is maintainable. Issue
No.2 is also held in favour of plaintiffs and issues 3 and 4 are held against the plaintiffs and are in favour of the defendants.
109.Additional Issue No.1 O.S.No.90/2010:- The newly added plaintiffs in
O.S.No.90/2010 taken a plea during the life of the plaintiff (M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy)
there was an oral partition. The plaint schedule property was given prior to looking after the proceedings to the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and to receive compensation in the suit. Though there was a pleading no evidence is let in by the plaintiffs to prove the oral partition. Thus, this issue is also held against the plaintiffs and is in favour of the defendants.
35
110.Additional Issue No.2 in O.S.No.90/2010:- The defendants contended that all the legal representatives of late M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy were not brought on record and only the sons of Rama Moorthy were added in O.S.No.90/2010 and his living daughters were not added and that the suit is not maintainable as it is bad for non-joinder of parties.
111.The plaintiffs in O.S.No.90/2010 in their rejoinder admitted that late Rama
Moorthy had a living daughter and legal heirs of predeceased daughter of the plaintiff, but they did not choose to amend the plaint by adding all the legal heirs of late M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy. Hence, I came to a conclusion that the non-joinder of living daughter and legal heirs of predeceased daughter of the plaintiff is bad and the suit is not maintainable. This issue is also held against the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.90/2010 and are in favour of the defendants.
112.Issue No.5 in all the suits in batch:- In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed
and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 29th day of April, 2019.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KURNOOL.
Appendix of Evidence (Witnesses examined) For Plaintiffs:-
P.W.1: M.D.Y.Rama Moorthy (Recorded by Advocate Commissioner) P.W.2: K.Surendranath Reddy P.W.3: J.Satya Rangaiah P.W.4: T.M.Ramesh P.W.5: Pinjari Ayya Saheb P.W.6: Y.Purushotham
For Defendants:-
D.W.1: B.Pullaiah D.W.2: N.Balu Naik D.W.3: A.Sravan Kumar (Professional Technician) D.W.4: Venkata Chennaiah, Deputy Inspector of Survey & Land Records, R.D.O Office, Anantapur.
36
For Plaintiffs:-
Ex.A.1 is office copy of legal notice; Ex.A.2 is registration extract of sale deed dt.20.5.1996; Ex.A.3 is registration extract of sale deed dt.4.1.1965; Ex.A.4 is registration extract of sale deed dt.7.8.1971; Ex.A.5 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.6 is registration extract of sale deed dt.19.6.1979; Ex.A.7 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.8 is registration extract of sale deed dt.19.6.1979; Ex.A.9 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.10 is partition deed dt.26.4.1984; Ex.A.11 is copy of Order dt.21.4.2009 passed in W.P.No.3474/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Ex.A.12 is office copy of representation dt.5.6.2009; Ex.A.13 is blue print copy of layout plan; Ex.A.14 is copy of Award Notification No.511969 dt.28.3.1969; Ex.A.15 certified copy of registered sale deed dt.19.5.1995; Ex.A.16 registered sale deed dt.7.11.1984; Ex.A.17 is registered sale deed dt.23.12.1993; Ex.A.18 is registered sale deed dt.21.1.2003; Ex.A.19 is registered sale deed dt.6.10.2004; Ex.A.20 is death certificate of T.M.Ramdas dt.26.8.2000; Ex.21 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.15.2.1968; Ex.A.22 is office copy of legal notice issued to defendant; Ex.A.23 is postal receipt; Ex.A.24 is postal acknowledgment; Ex.A.25 is copy of layout plan; Ex.A.26 is Xerox copy of Award copy.
For Defendants:- Ex.B.1 is Authorization letter; Exs.B.2 to B.9 are sketches; Ex.B.10 is proceedings; Ex.B.11 is acknowledgment proceedings; Ex.B.12 is proceedings; Ex.B.13 is Award Proceedings; Ex.B.14 is Land Acquisition RCA/2017 dt.5.1.2018; Ex.B.15 is RCC 13/2017 dt.6.1.2018; Ex.B.16 is letter in L.Dis.No.A/34/2018 dt.12.1.2018.
PSCJ, KNL.
1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KURNOOL.
Present:- Sri A.Moses, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of April, 2019.
O.S.No.90/2010 and its batch suits in
O.S.92/2010, O.S.No.94/2010,
O.S.No.96/2010 and O.S.No.476/2010
O.S.No.90/2010:
*** M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy (died) represented by his legal representatives
1) M.D.V.Rama Sarma
2) M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma
3) M.D.V.Madhava Krishna….Plaintiffs
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants
O.S.No.92/2010:
J.Satya Rangaiah…. Plaintiff
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants
O.S.No.94/2010:
K.Surendranath Reddy…. Plaintiff
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants 2
O.S.No.96/2010:
1) K.Ramakrishna Reddy (died) represented by his legal representatives plaintiffs 2 to 4 ***2) K.Lakshmi Devi ***3) K.Surendranatha Reddy ***4) K.Madhusudhana Reddy…. Plaintiffs (*** Impleaded as per Orders in I.A.NO.489/2017 dt.23.10.2017)
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants
O.S.No.476/2010:
1) T.M.Chowdamma
2) T.M.Ramesh
3) T.M.Jagadish
4) T.M.Anand Babu
5) T.M.Ranukamma
6) T.M.Manohar Babu
7) T.M.Aruna…. Plaintiffs
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants
These suits are coming up before me on 20.3.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.K.Vijaya Lakshmi, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Assistant
Government Pleader for Defendant No.1 and Government Pleader for Defendant
No.2 in all the batch suits, upon hearing both sides, after perusing the record and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:- 3
COMMON JUDGMENT
All the above suits are filed against the Government of India and
Government of Andhra Pradesh by different plaintiffs and the reliefs against the defendants are common and the survey numbers of the plaint schedule properties are also common. Both sides counsel filed a joint memo to conduct joint trial and to record evidence in O.S.No.90/2010. Accordingly, the evidence in O.S.No.90/2010 was recorded.
O.S.No.90/2010
This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.8,12,500/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
2.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently 4 after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
3.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
4.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah,
S/o Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
5.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masum”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
5
6.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
7.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy, S/o
Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam Sashtri,
3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind Babu, S/o
M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
8.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
9.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
6
10.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
11.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
12.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
13.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and 7 delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
14.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
15.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
16.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
17.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
8
18.On 25.1.2019 the following additional issues are framed:-
1) Whether oral partition took place during the life time of the plaintiff (M.D.Y.Rama Moorthy) and in that oral partition, the plaint schedule property was given right to look after the proceeding to the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and to receive compensation in the suit?
2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the living daughter and L.Rs of predeceased daughter of the plaintiff (M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy)?
O.S.No.92/2010
19.This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.8,12,500/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
20.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being 9 heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
21.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
22.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah,
S/o Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
23.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masoom”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
10
24.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
25.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy,
S/o Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam
Sashtri, 3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind
Babu, S/o M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
26.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
27.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
11
28.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
29.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
30.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
31.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and 12 delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
32.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
33.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
34.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
35.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
13
O.S.No.94/2010
36.This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
37.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
14
38.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
39.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah, S/o
Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
40.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masoom”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
41.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in 15 favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
42.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy,
S/o Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam
Sashtri, 3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind
Babu, S/o M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
43.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
44.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
45.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
16
46.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
47.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
48.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
17
49.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
50.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
51.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
52.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
18
O.S.No.96/2010
53.This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
54.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
19
55.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
56.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah, S/o
Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
57.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masoom”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
58.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in 20 favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
59.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy,
S/o Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam
Sashtri, 3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind
Babu, S/o M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
60.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
61.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
62.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
21
63.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
64.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
65.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
22
66.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
67.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
68.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
69.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
23
O.S.No.476/2010
70.This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.17,56,920/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
71.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
24
72.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
73.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah, S/o
Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
74.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masoom”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
75.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in 25 favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
76.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy,
S/o Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam
Sashtri, 3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind
Babu, S/o M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
77.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
78.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
79.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
26
80.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
81.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
82.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
27
83.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
84.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
85.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
86.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
28
87.To prove the case of the plaintiffs in all the suits, the first plaintiff in
O.S.No.90/2010 was examined as P.W.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.94/2010 was
examined as P.W.2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.92/2010 was examined as P.W.2. The 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.476/2010 was examined as P.W.4. P.W.5 is one Pinjari Ayya
Saheb is a 3rd party and one Y.Purushotham was examined as P.W.6. Thus, on the plaintiffs side P.Ws 1 to 6 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.26 are marked in all the suits. On the defendants side in all the suits D.Ws 1 to 4 are examined and Exs.B.1 to B.6 are marked on either side.
88.Issues 1 to 4 in all the suits in batch:- The burden of proving these issues are on the plaintiffs in all the suits. To prove the case of the plaintiff in
O.S.No.90/2010 he himself examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the entire plaint
contents as that of his evidence affidavit. He exhibited the following documents on behalf of the plaintiffs in all the above suits.
Ex.A.1 is office copy of legal notice; Ex.A.2 is registration extract of sale deed dt.20.5.1996; Ex.A.3 is registration extract of sale deed dt.4.1.1965; Ex.A.4 is registration extract of sale deed dt.7.8.1971; Ex.A.5 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.6 is registration extract of sale deed dt.19.6.1979; Ex.A.7 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.8 is registration extract of sale deed dt.19.6.1979; Ex.A.9 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981;
Ex.A.10 is partition deed dt.26.4.1984; Ex.A.11 is copy of Order dt.21.4.2009 passed in W.P.No.3474/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Ex.A.12 is office copy of representation dt.5.6.2009; Ex.A.13 is blue print copy of layout plan;
Ex.A.14 is copy of Award Notification No.511969 dt.28.3.1969; Ex.A.15 certified copy of registered sale deed dt.19.5.1995; Ex.A.16 registered sale deed dt.7.11.1984;
Ex.A.17 is registered sale deed dt.23.12.1993; Ex.A.18 is registered sale deed dt.21.1.2003; Ex.A.19 is registered sale deed dt.6.10.2004; Ex.A.20 is death certificate of T.M.Ramdas dt.26.8.2000; Ex.21 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.15.2.1968; Ex.A.22 is office copy of legal notice issued to defendant;
Ex.A.23 is postal receipt; Ex.A.24 is postal acknowledgment; Ex.A.25 is copy of layout plan and Ex.A.26 is Xerox copy of Award copy.
The plaintiff in O.S.No.94/2010 was examined as P.W.2, the plaintiff in
O.S.No.92/2010 was examined as P.W.3 and the 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.476/2010
was examined as P.W.4, all of them reiterated their respective plaint contents as that of their evidence affidavits.
29
P.W.5 is Pinjari Ayya Saheb, S/o Late P.Salam Miah who deposed that his father sold one acre out of Ac.2.26 cents to one T.M.Ramdas, husband of plaintiff in O.S.No.476/2010.
P.W.6 is one Y.Purushotham is a third party who deposed that his father
Y.Chinna Madanna sold Ac.1.90 cents to Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool in the year 1971. The National Highway Authority had not acquired Ac.1.90 cents of land under Award No.5/1969 that was passed on 28.3.1969.
This is all the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiffs in all the suits.
To prove the case of the defendants The Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit,
NHAI, Kurnool was examined as D.W.1 who reiterated the entire written statement contents as that of his evidence affidavit and denied the case of the plaintiffs and deposed that under D.2 the lands of plaintiffs were acquired and that payment of compensation does not arise. He exhibited the following documents:-
Ex.B.1 is Authorization letter; Exs.B.2 to B.9 are sketches; Ex.B.10 is proceedings; Ex.B.11 is acknowledgment proceedings; Ex.B.12 is proceedings;
Ex.B.13 is Award Proceedings; Ex.B.14 is Land Acquisition RCA/2017 dt.5.1.2018;
Ex.B.15 is RCC 13/2017 dt.6.1.2018 and Ex.B.16 is letter in L.Dis.No.A/34/2018 dt.12.1.2018.
D.W.2 N.Balu Naik, Mandal Surveyor, Tahasildar Office, Kallur deposed that he was directed by B.Pullaiah, Spl. Deputy Collector, NH-7, Kurnool to conduct survey in Sy.No.601 of Kallur village. Accordingly, he conducted and Exs.B.5 plans are drawn by him.
D.W.3 is one A.Sravan Kumar, working as Professional Technical who deposed and denied the entire case of the plaintiffs. He deposed that the sales of the plaintiffs are subsequent to award and they cannot be taken into consideration.
D.W.4 is one Venkata Chennaiah, Deputy Inspector of Surveyor, RDO,
Ananthapuram deposed that on the instructions of Tahasildar, he conducted survey in Sy.No.601/1B of Kallur village of Kallur village.
30
This is all the oral and documentary evidence on the defendants side in a nutshell.
89.On careful perusal of the evidence on either side the case of the plaintiffs in all the suits, their case is common and contended that they are the absolute owners of their respective plaint schedule properties, which are acquired by
National Highway Authority for laying four way lanes in the year 2008 and that they are claiming compensation.
90.The case of the defendants that the plaint schedule properties are not belonging to the plaintiff and they are National Highway properties which were acquired much earlier in the year 1969 while widening the roads by the then
Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition by awarding and giving compensation to the then land owners. So question of re-acquiring the same land in the year 2008 will not arise at all, and the question of awarding compensation will not arise at all.
91.The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 in his cross examination admitted that he filed Ex.A.2 to show that the land in Sy.No.601/1 the extent of Ac.7.96 cents belongs to Pinjari Masoom and others. He further deposed that what was acquired in the year 1969 by the Government was only Ac.0.94 cents in Sy.No.601/1 belongs to Pinjari Masoom. His predecessors in title did not raise any objection for the acquisition proceedings in the year 1969.
92.He further deposed in his cross examination that he filed Ex.A.2 to show that the land in Sy.No.601/1 belongs to Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan, Pinjari
Moulali and Pinjari Salam Miah. He has not filed any revenue record to show that they are the pattadars in 10 (1) Account and he admitted that in all the registered documents filed by him there is a recital that the pattadar pass books for the land in Sy.No.60/1 was not filed.
93.On examination of the evidence of P.W.1 it is an admitted fact by the plaintiff and their witnesses that some of the land was acquired in the year 1969 through Award No.5/1969. The burden lies on the plaintiffs that the land acquired in the year 1969 is not very same land shown in the plaint schedules of the batch suits.
31
94.The prime contention of the plaintiffs in all the suits that Pinjari Masoom had brothers, and the suit schedule properties belonged to all brothers and they were partitioned among them and they sold the same to the vendors of the plaintiffs and thereafter the plaintiffs purchased them through their vendors. The plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to show that there was a partition between the brothers of Pinjari Masoom and himself. When the plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence for partition as alleged both in their plaint the question of purchasing properties from their vendors does not arise.
95.On examination of the evidence of P.W.2 in his cross examination he admitted that the Government had acquired land of Ac.0.94 cents in Sy.No.601/1B from Pinjari Masoom in the year 1969. He further admitted that at the time of acquiring the land the Government paid compensation to Pinjari Masoom and the said compensation was paid in the year 1969 itself. He admitted that Pinjari
Masoom had handed over the possession of Ac.0.94 cents of land to the
Government in the year 1969 as per the Award No.5/1969. The brothers of Pinjari
Masoom or their predecessors in title did not submit any objections before the
Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer for awarding compensation to Pinjari Masoom.
96.The admissions made by P.W.3 is the same as that of P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.4 is that when they approached the 2nd defendant herein his staff had orally expressed that the plaint schedule land to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents which form part of the land was already acquired for the purpose of N.H.7 under Award
No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969. He further deposed that in fact what was acquired in
Sy.No.601/1B of Kallur Gram Panchayat was only Ac.0.94 cents. Pinjari Masoom alone was made claimant over the said portion of the land acquired.
97.P.W.5 deposed that in fact only the land of Ac.0.94 cents were acquired in the land acquisition proceedings under Award No.5/1969.
98.In the cross examination of P.W.1 he stated that he has not filed documents to show that the property belonged to Pinjari Masoom and his brothers and he did not file any document to show that Pinjari Masoom and his brothers have effected oral partition and that Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hasan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each while Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents towards the respective shares in oral partition. He do not know whether the said persons have 32 obtained separate pattadar pass books and title deeds for the lands allotted to their respective shares. He admitted that he did not file any document to show that
Sy.No.601/1 was sub-divided as Sy.No.601/1B after passing of the award and that only Ac.0.94 cents of land of Pinjari Masoom was acquired under the Award
No.5/1969.
99.On examination of the evidence of P.W.4 and in his cross examination he stated that he did not make any personal enquiry to find out whether the said
Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan, Pinjari Moulali and Pinjari Salama Miah are having any right or title over the disputed land. He did not file any document to show that the said four brothers are having any title over the disputed land. He do not know what are the other properties that were partitioned among the four brothers along with the land in the plaint schedule survey number as on the date of the oral partition effected among the said four brothers. His father purchased the property in the year 1968 after getting the land surveyed by competent Mandal
Surveyor. He cannot say the name of the Surveyor who did the survey. He did not file report of the Surveyor before the Court and he has not seen the report of the
Surveyor or its copy till date. He did not file copy of 10 (1) Adangal to show that the plaint schedule property was in the name of the vendors of his father till the purchase of the same by his father. He did not file any copy of adangal to show that his father possessed the property from 1968 to 1972. He did not get any survey conducted to show that the land acquired under Award under Ex.A.26.
Award copy in Award No.6/1969 is entirely different from the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.476/2010. He did not seek to appoint Advocate Commissioner to measure and locate the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.476/2010. Except his evidence he do not have any document to show that the land acquired under
Ex.A.26 is different from the property claimed by him. He did not issue any legal notice to the vendors of his father and did not met them after knowing about the acquisition of the land under Award in Ex.A.26.
100.On examination of the evidence of P.W.5 he deposed that he was the child at the time of execution of sale deed executed by his father and he do not know the details and measurements of the land sold by his father and the remaining land. Thus the evidence of P.W.5 is no way useful to prove the case of the plaintiffs.
33
101.In his cross examination he admitted that he was not present when the land was surveyed at request of other persons. He do not know any records regarding the acquisition of lands in the year 1969, and he has not seen the Award regarding the disputed survey number. He cannot say the particulars of the partition effected between him and his brothers.
102.So far as the evidence of P.W.6 is concerned he do not know the full details of the documents in favour of the plaintiff and he stated that the sale deed on behalf of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, might have been executed by Narappa and
Venkata Subbaiah. Thus, it is clear from his admission that he do not know anything about the properties. He did not file any document to show that the purchase of the property by his father and sale of the same property by his father to Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool. He did not file any copy of adangal pertaining to the suit schedule property before the Court. He did not secure any adangal for the said property and did not verify the same. He do not know how much extent of land was acquired under the said award, how much compensation was ordered to be paid under the said award. Thus, the evidence of P.W.6 is no way useful to prove the case of the plaintiff.
103.On examination of the evidence of plaintiffs coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.26 it is clear that they could not positively established the alleged oral partition and even that they are not aware of the alleged partition. The plaintiffs also failed to produce any evidence to show their vendors’ possession over the plaint schedule properties. The evidence of the plaintiff’s further clarifies that they never conducted any survey either before or after 1969 acquisition of land and even they never decided to conduct any survey by seeking permission of the Court in order to bring the material available point is on their side.
104.It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs approached the Hon’ble High Court and as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court the joint Collector passed orders and the plaintiffs have not preferred any appeal or revision against the said order dt.31.5.2009 and P.Ws 1 to 4 admitted the same in their cross examination.
105.P.W.2 clearly admitted that the Joint Collector passed orders on 31.5.2009 denying their claim on the ground that the Award was already passed earlier by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool. The Joint Collector passed orders stating that they constructed the shops illegally in the land of the Government and with 34 respect to eviction, and the Tahasildar was directed to evict them, and the
Tahasildar evicted them and handed over the possession to the National Highway
Authority and he did not file any Writ Petition against him for forcibly evicting him.
106.During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 died and after his death his sons only were brought on record as his legal heirs and also as plaintiffs. The defendants took objection raising that the deceased plaintiff is having daughters, by way of additional written statement. Then the added plaintiffs filed rejoinder accepting that the deceased plaintiff is having daughters but denied that they are not considerable as legal heirs stating that during the pendency of the suit an oral partition took place and the alleged plaint schedule property is fallen to their shares only. No evidence is produced to that effect. The plaintiffs did not choose to let in any evidence on the additional issues to prove their contention mentioned in the rejoinder. The newly added plaintiffs in O.S.No.90/2010 admitted that the deceased plaintiff is having daughters and with regard to the fact that whether the earlier partition was took place or not has to be proved by the newly added plaintiffs in O.S.No.90/2010.
107.In view of the foregoing reasons, I came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title over the respective schedule properties in all the above suits and the plaintiffs are not entitled for the compensation as prayed for.
108.Thus issue No.1 is held in favour of the plaintiffs as it is maintainable. Issue
No.2 is also held in favour of plaintiffs and issues 3 and 4 are held against the plaintiffs and are in favour of the defendants.
109.Additional Issue No.1 O.S.No.90/2010:- The newly added plaintiffs in
O.S.No.90/2010 taken a plea during the life of the plaintiff (M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy)
there was an oral partition. The plaint schedule property was given prior to looking after the proceedings to the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and to receive compensation in the suit. Though there was a pleading no evidence is let in by the plaintiffs to prove the oral partition. Thus, this issue is also held against the plaintiffs and is in favour of the defendants.
35
110.Additional Issue No.2 in O.S.No.90/2010:- The defendants contended that all the legal representatives of late M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy were not brought on record and only the sons of Rama Moorthy were added in O.S.No.90/2010 and his living daughters were not added and that the suit is not maintainable as it is bad for non-joinder of parties.
111.The plaintiffs in O.S.No.90/2010 in their rejoinder admitted that late Rama
Moorthy had a living daughter and legal heirs of predeceased daughter of the plaintiff, but they did not choose to amend the plaint by adding all the legal heirs of late M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy. Hence, I came to a conclusion that the non-joinder of living daughter and legal heirs of predeceased daughter of the plaintiff is bad and the suit is not maintainable. This issue is also held against the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.90/2010 and are in favour of the defendants.
112.Issue No.5 in all the suits in batch:- In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed
and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 29th day of April, 2019.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KURNOOL.
Appendix of Evidence (Witnesses examined) For Plaintiffs:-
P.W.1: M.D.Y.Rama Moorthy (Recorded by Advocate Commissioner) P.W.2: K.Surendranath Reddy P.W.3: J.Satya Rangaiah P.W.4: T.M.Ramesh P.W.5: Pinjari Ayya Saheb P.W.6: Y.Purushotham
For Defendants:-
D.W.1: B.Pullaiah D.W.2: N.Balu Naik D.W.3: A.Sravan Kumar (Professional Technician) D.W.4: Venkata Chennaiah, Deputy Inspector of Survey & Land Records, R.D.O Office, Anantapur.
36
For Plaintiffs:-
Ex.A.1 is office copy of legal notice; Ex.A.2 is registration extract of sale deed dt.20.5.1996; Ex.A.3 is registration extract of sale deed dt.4.1.1965; Ex.A.4 is registration extract of sale deed dt.7.8.1971; Ex.A.5 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.6 is registration extract of sale deed dt.19.6.1979; Ex.A.7 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.8 is registration extract of sale deed dt.19.6.1979; Ex.A.9 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.10 is partition deed dt.26.4.1984; Ex.A.11 is copy of Order dt.21.4.2009 passed in W.P.No.3474/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Ex.A.12 is office copy of representation dt.5.6.2009; Ex.A.13 is blue print copy of layout plan; Ex.A.14 is copy of Award Notification No.511969 dt.28.3.1969; Ex.A.15 certified copy of registered sale deed dt.19.5.1995; Ex.A.16 registered sale deed dt.7.11.1984; Ex.A.17 is registered sale deed dt.23.12.1993; Ex.A.18 is registered sale deed dt.21.1.2003; Ex.A.19 is registered sale deed dt.6.10.2004; Ex.A.20 is death certificate of T.M.Ramdas dt.26.8.2000; Ex.21 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.15.2.1968; Ex.A.22 is office copy of legal notice issued to defendant; Ex.A.23 is postal receipt; Ex.A.24 is postal acknowledgment; Ex.A.25 is copy of layout plan; Ex.A.26 is Xerox copy of Award copy.
For Defendants:- Ex.B.1 is Authorization letter; Exs.B.2 to B.9 are sketches; Ex.B.10 is proceedings; Ex.B.11 is acknowledgment proceedings; Ex.B.12 is proceedings; Ex.B.13 is Award Proceedings; Ex.B.14 is Land Acquisition RCA/2017 dt.5.1.2018; Ex.B.15 is RCC 13/2017 dt.6.1.2018; Ex.B.16 is letter in L.Dis.No.A/34/2018 dt.12.1.2018.
PSCJ, KNL.
1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KURNOOL.
Present:- Sri A.Moses, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of April, 2019.
O.S.No.90/2010 and its batch suits in
O.S.92/2010, O.S.No.94/2010,
O.S.No.96/2010 and O.S.No.476/2010
O.S.No.90/2010:
*** M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy (died) represented by his legal representatives
1) M.D.V.Rama Sarma
2) M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma
3) M.D.V.Madhava Krishna….Plaintiffs
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants
O.S.No.92/2010:
J.Satya Rangaiah…. Plaintiff
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants
O.S.No.94/2010:
K.Surendranath Reddy…. Plaintiff
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants 2
O.S.No.96/2010:
1) K.Ramakrishna Reddy (died) represented by his legal representatives plaintiffs 2 to 4 ***2) K.Lakshmi Devi ***3) K.Surendranatha Reddy ***4) K.Madhusudhana Reddy…. Plaintiffs (*** Impleaded as per Orders in I.A.NO.489/2017 dt.23.10.2017)
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants
O.S.No.476/2010:
1) T.M.Chowdamma
2) T.M.Ramesh
3) T.M.Jagadish
4) T.M.Anand Babu
5) T.M.Ranukamma
6) T.M.Manohar Babu
7) T.M.Aruna…. Plaintiffs
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants
These suits are coming up before me on 20.3.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.K.Vijaya Lakshmi, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Assistant
Government Pleader for Defendant No.1 and Government Pleader for Defendant
No.2 in all the batch suits, upon hearing both sides, after perusing the record and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:- 3
COMMON JUDGMENT
All the above suits are filed against the Government of India and
Government of Andhra Pradesh by different plaintiffs and the reliefs against the defendants are common and the survey numbers of the plaint schedule properties are also common. Both sides counsel filed a joint memo to conduct joint trial and to record evidence in O.S.No.90/2010. Accordingly, the evidence in O.S.No.90/2010 was recorded.
O.S.No.90/2010
This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.8,12,500/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
2.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently 4 after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
3.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
4.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah,
S/o Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
5.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masum”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
5
6.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
7.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy, S/o
Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam Sashtri,
3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind Babu, S/o
M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
8.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
9.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
6
10.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
11.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
12.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
13.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and 7 delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
14.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
15.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
16.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
17.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
8
18.On 25.1.2019 the following additional issues are framed:-
1) Whether oral partition took place during the life time of the plaintiff (M.D.Y.Rama Moorthy) and in that oral partition, the plaint schedule property was given right to look after the proceeding to the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and to receive compensation in the suit?
2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the living daughter and L.Rs of predeceased daughter of the plaintiff (M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy)?
O.S.No.92/2010
19.This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.8,12,500/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
20.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being 9 heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
21.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
22.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah,
S/o Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
23.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masoom”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
10
24.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
25.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy,
S/o Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam
Sashtri, 3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind
Babu, S/o M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
26.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
27.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
11
28.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
29.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
30.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
31.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and 12 delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
32.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
33.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
34.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
35.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
13
O.S.No.94/2010
36.This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
37.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
14
38.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
39.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah, S/o
Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
40.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masoom”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
41.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in 15 favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
42.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy,
S/o Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam
Sashtri, 3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind
Babu, S/o M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
43.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
44.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
45.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
16
46.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
47.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
48.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
17
49.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
50.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
51.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
52.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
18
O.S.No.96/2010
53.This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
54.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
19
55.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
56.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah, S/o
Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
57.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masoom”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
58.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in 20 favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
59.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy,
S/o Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam
Sashtri, 3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind
Babu, S/o M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
60.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
61.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
62.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
21
63.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
64.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
65.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
22
66.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
67.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
68.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
69.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
23
O.S.No.476/2010
70.This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.17,56,920/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
71.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
24
72.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
73.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah, S/o
Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
74.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masoom”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
75.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in 25 favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
76.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy,
S/o Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam
Sashtri, 3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind
Babu, S/o M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
77.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
78.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
79.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
26
80.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
81.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
82.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
27
83.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
84.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
85.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
86.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
28
87.To prove the case of the plaintiffs in all the suits, the first plaintiff in
O.S.No.90/2010 was examined as P.W.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.94/2010 was
examined as P.W.2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.92/2010 was examined as P.W.2. The 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.476/2010 was examined as P.W.4. P.W.5 is one Pinjari Ayya
Saheb is a 3rd party and one Y.Purushotham was examined as P.W.6. Thus, on the plaintiffs side P.Ws 1 to 6 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.26 are marked in all the suits. On the defendants side in all the suits D.Ws 1 to 4 are examined and Exs.B.1 to B.6 are marked on either side.
88.Issues 1 to 4 in all the suits in batch:- The burden of proving these issues are on the plaintiffs in all the suits. To prove the case of the plaintiff in
O.S.No.90/2010 he himself examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the entire plaint
contents as that of his evidence affidavit. He exhibited the following documents on behalf of the plaintiffs in all the above suits.
Ex.A.1 is office copy of legal notice; Ex.A.2 is registration extract of sale deed dt.20.5.1996; Ex.A.3 is registration extract of sale deed dt.4.1.1965; Ex.A.4 is registration extract of sale deed dt.7.8.1971; Ex.A.5 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.6 is registration extract of sale deed dt.19.6.1979; Ex.A.7 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.8 is registration extract of sale deed dt.19.6.1979; Ex.A.9 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981;
Ex.A.10 is partition deed dt.26.4.1984; Ex.A.11 is copy of Order dt.21.4.2009 passed in W.P.No.3474/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Ex.A.12 is office copy of representation dt.5.6.2009; Ex.A.13 is blue print copy of layout plan;
Ex.A.14 is copy of Award Notification No.511969 dt.28.3.1969; Ex.A.15 certified copy of registered sale deed dt.19.5.1995; Ex.A.16 registered sale deed dt.7.11.1984;
Ex.A.17 is registered sale deed dt.23.12.1993; Ex.A.18 is registered sale deed dt.21.1.2003; Ex.A.19 is registered sale deed dt.6.10.2004; Ex.A.20 is death certificate of T.M.Ramdas dt.26.8.2000; Ex.21 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.15.2.1968; Ex.A.22 is office copy of legal notice issued to defendant;
Ex.A.23 is postal receipt; Ex.A.24 is postal acknowledgment; Ex.A.25 is copy of layout plan and Ex.A.26 is Xerox copy of Award copy.
The plaintiff in O.S.No.94/2010 was examined as P.W.2, the plaintiff in
O.S.No.92/2010 was examined as P.W.3 and the 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.476/2010
was examined as P.W.4, all of them reiterated their respective plaint contents as that of their evidence affidavits.
29
P.W.5 is Pinjari Ayya Saheb, S/o Late P.Salam Miah who deposed that his father sold one acre out of Ac.2.26 cents to one T.M.Ramdas, husband of plaintiff in O.S.No.476/2010.
P.W.6 is one Y.Purushotham is a third party who deposed that his father
Y.Chinna Madanna sold Ac.1.90 cents to Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool in the year 1971. The National Highway Authority had not acquired Ac.1.90 cents of land under Award No.5/1969 that was passed on 28.3.1969.
This is all the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiffs in all the suits.
To prove the case of the defendants The Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit,
NHAI, Kurnool was examined as D.W.1 who reiterated the entire written statement contents as that of his evidence affidavit and denied the case of the plaintiffs and deposed that under D.2 the lands of plaintiffs were acquired and that payment of compensation does not arise. He exhibited the following documents:-
Ex.B.1 is Authorization letter; Exs.B.2 to B.9 are sketches; Ex.B.10 is proceedings; Ex.B.11 is acknowledgment proceedings; Ex.B.12 is proceedings;
Ex.B.13 is Award Proceedings; Ex.B.14 is Land Acquisition RCA/2017 dt.5.1.2018;
Ex.B.15 is RCC 13/2017 dt.6.1.2018 and Ex.B.16 is letter in L.Dis.No.A/34/2018 dt.12.1.2018.
D.W.2 N.Balu Naik, Mandal Surveyor, Tahasildar Office, Kallur deposed that he was directed by B.Pullaiah, Spl. Deputy Collector, NH-7, Kurnool to conduct survey in Sy.No.601 of Kallur village. Accordingly, he conducted and Exs.B.5 plans are drawn by him.
D.W.3 is one A.Sravan Kumar, working as Professional Technical who deposed and denied the entire case of the plaintiffs. He deposed that the sales of the plaintiffs are subsequent to award and they cannot be taken into consideration.
D.W.4 is one Venkata Chennaiah, Deputy Inspector of Surveyor, RDO,
Ananthapuram deposed that on the instructions of Tahasildar, he conducted survey in Sy.No.601/1B of Kallur village of Kallur village.
30
This is all the oral and documentary evidence on the defendants side in a nutshell.
89.On careful perusal of the evidence on either side the case of the plaintiffs in all the suits, their case is common and contended that they are the absolute owners of their respective plaint schedule properties, which are acquired by
National Highway Authority for laying four way lanes in the year 2008 and that they are claiming compensation.
90.The case of the defendants that the plaint schedule properties are not belonging to the plaintiff and they are National Highway properties which were acquired much earlier in the year 1969 while widening the roads by the then
Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition by awarding and giving compensation to the then land owners. So question of re-acquiring the same land in the year 2008 will not arise at all, and the question of awarding compensation will not arise at all.
91.The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 in his cross examination admitted that he filed Ex.A.2 to show that the land in Sy.No.601/1 the extent of Ac.7.96 cents belongs to Pinjari Masoom and others. He further deposed that what was acquired in the year 1969 by the Government was only Ac.0.94 cents in Sy.No.601/1 belongs to Pinjari Masoom. His predecessors in title did not raise any objection for the acquisition proceedings in the year 1969.
92.He further deposed in his cross examination that he filed Ex.A.2 to show that the land in Sy.No.601/1 belongs to Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan, Pinjari
Moulali and Pinjari Salam Miah. He has not filed any revenue record to show that they are the pattadars in 10 (1) Account and he admitted that in all the registered documents filed by him there is a recital that the pattadar pass books for the land in Sy.No.60/1 was not filed.
93.On examination of the evidence of P.W.1 it is an admitted fact by the plaintiff and their witnesses that some of the land was acquired in the year 1969 through Award No.5/1969. The burden lies on the plaintiffs that the land acquired in the year 1969 is not very same land shown in the plaint schedules of the batch suits.
31
94.The prime contention of the plaintiffs in all the suits that Pinjari Masoom had brothers, and the suit schedule properties belonged to all brothers and they were partitioned among them and they sold the same to the vendors of the plaintiffs and thereafter the plaintiffs purchased them through their vendors. The plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to show that there was a partition between the brothers of Pinjari Masoom and himself. When the plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence for partition as alleged both in their plaint the question of purchasing properties from their vendors does not arise.
95.On examination of the evidence of P.W.2 in his cross examination he admitted that the Government had acquired land of Ac.0.94 cents in Sy.No.601/1B from Pinjari Masoom in the year 1969. He further admitted that at the time of acquiring the land the Government paid compensation to Pinjari Masoom and the said compensation was paid in the year 1969 itself. He admitted that Pinjari
Masoom had handed over the possession of Ac.0.94 cents of land to the
Government in the year 1969 as per the Award No.5/1969. The brothers of Pinjari
Masoom or their predecessors in title did not submit any objections before the
Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer for awarding compensation to Pinjari Masoom.
96.The admissions made by P.W.3 is the same as that of P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.4 is that when they approached the 2nd defendant herein his staff had orally expressed that the plaint schedule land to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents which form part of the land was already acquired for the purpose of N.H.7 under Award
No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969. He further deposed that in fact what was acquired in
Sy.No.601/1B of Kallur Gram Panchayat was only Ac.0.94 cents. Pinjari Masoom alone was made claimant over the said portion of the land acquired.
97.P.W.5 deposed that in fact only the land of Ac.0.94 cents were acquired in the land acquisition proceedings under Award No.5/1969.
98.In the cross examination of P.W.1 he stated that he has not filed documents to show that the property belonged to Pinjari Masoom and his brothers and he did not file any document to show that Pinjari Masoom and his brothers have effected oral partition and that Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hasan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each while Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents towards the respective shares in oral partition. He do not know whether the said persons have 32 obtained separate pattadar pass books and title deeds for the lands allotted to their respective shares. He admitted that he did not file any document to show that
Sy.No.601/1 was sub-divided as Sy.No.601/1B after passing of the award and that only Ac.0.94 cents of land of Pinjari Masoom was acquired under the Award
No.5/1969.
99.On examination of the evidence of P.W.4 and in his cross examination he stated that he did not make any personal enquiry to find out whether the said
Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan, Pinjari Moulali and Pinjari Salama Miah are having any right or title over the disputed land. He did not file any document to show that the said four brothers are having any title over the disputed land. He do not know what are the other properties that were partitioned among the four brothers along with the land in the plaint schedule survey number as on the date of the oral partition effected among the said four brothers. His father purchased the property in the year 1968 after getting the land surveyed by competent Mandal
Surveyor. He cannot say the name of the Surveyor who did the survey. He did not file report of the Surveyor before the Court and he has not seen the report of the
Surveyor or its copy till date. He did not file copy of 10 (1) Adangal to show that the plaint schedule property was in the name of the vendors of his father till the purchase of the same by his father. He did not file any copy of adangal to show that his father possessed the property from 1968 to 1972. He did not get any survey conducted to show that the land acquired under Award under Ex.A.26.
Award copy in Award No.6/1969 is entirely different from the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.476/2010. He did not seek to appoint Advocate Commissioner to measure and locate the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.476/2010. Except his evidence he do not have any document to show that the land acquired under
Ex.A.26 is different from the property claimed by him. He did not issue any legal notice to the vendors of his father and did not met them after knowing about the acquisition of the land under Award in Ex.A.26.
100.On examination of the evidence of P.W.5 he deposed that he was the child at the time of execution of sale deed executed by his father and he do not know the details and measurements of the land sold by his father and the remaining land. Thus the evidence of P.W.5 is no way useful to prove the case of the plaintiffs.
33
101.In his cross examination he admitted that he was not present when the land was surveyed at request of other persons. He do not know any records regarding the acquisition of lands in the year 1969, and he has not seen the Award regarding the disputed survey number. He cannot say the particulars of the partition effected between him and his brothers.
102.So far as the evidence of P.W.6 is concerned he do not know the full details of the documents in favour of the plaintiff and he stated that the sale deed on behalf of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, might have been executed by Narappa and
Venkata Subbaiah. Thus, it is clear from his admission that he do not know anything about the properties. He did not file any document to show that the purchase of the property by his father and sale of the same property by his father to Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool. He did not file any copy of adangal pertaining to the suit schedule property before the Court. He did not secure any adangal for the said property and did not verify the same. He do not know how much extent of land was acquired under the said award, how much compensation was ordered to be paid under the said award. Thus, the evidence of P.W.6 is no way useful to prove the case of the plaintiff.
103.On examination of the evidence of plaintiffs coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.26 it is clear that they could not positively established the alleged oral partition and even that they are not aware of the alleged partition. The plaintiffs also failed to produce any evidence to show their vendors’ possession over the plaint schedule properties. The evidence of the plaintiff’s further clarifies that they never conducted any survey either before or after 1969 acquisition of land and even they never decided to conduct any survey by seeking permission of the Court in order to bring the material available point is on their side.
104.It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs approached the Hon’ble High Court and as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court the joint Collector passed orders and the plaintiffs have not preferred any appeal or revision against the said order dt.31.5.2009 and P.Ws 1 to 4 admitted the same in their cross examination.
105.P.W.2 clearly admitted that the Joint Collector passed orders on 31.5.2009 denying their claim on the ground that the Award was already passed earlier by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool. The Joint Collector passed orders stating that they constructed the shops illegally in the land of the Government and with 34 respect to eviction, and the Tahasildar was directed to evict them, and the
Tahasildar evicted them and handed over the possession to the National Highway
Authority and he did not file any Writ Petition against him for forcibly evicting him.
106.During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 died and after his death his sons only were brought on record as his legal heirs and also as plaintiffs. The defendants took objection raising that the deceased plaintiff is having daughters, by way of additional written statement. Then the added plaintiffs filed rejoinder accepting that the deceased plaintiff is having daughters but denied that they are not considerable as legal heirs stating that during the pendency of the suit an oral partition took place and the alleged plaint schedule property is fallen to their shares only. No evidence is produced to that effect. The plaintiffs did not choose to let in any evidence on the additional issues to prove their contention mentioned in the rejoinder. The newly added plaintiffs in O.S.No.90/2010 admitted that the deceased plaintiff is having daughters and with regard to the fact that whether the earlier partition was took place or not has to be proved by the newly added plaintiffs in O.S.No.90/2010.
107.In view of the foregoing reasons, I came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title over the respective schedule properties in all the above suits and the plaintiffs are not entitled for the compensation as prayed for.
108.Thus issue No.1 is held in favour of the plaintiffs as it is maintainable. Issue
No.2 is also held in favour of plaintiffs and issues 3 and 4 are held against the plaintiffs and are in favour of the defendants.
109.Additional Issue No.1 O.S.No.90/2010:- The newly added plaintiffs in
O.S.No.90/2010 taken a plea during the life of the plaintiff (M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy)
there was an oral partition. The plaint schedule property was given prior to looking after the proceedings to the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and to receive compensation in the suit. Though there was a pleading no evidence is let in by the plaintiffs to prove the oral partition. Thus, this issue is also held against the plaintiffs and is in favour of the defendants.
35
110.Additional Issue No.2 in O.S.No.90/2010:- The defendants contended that all the legal representatives of late M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy were not brought on record and only the sons of Rama Moorthy were added in O.S.No.90/2010 and his living daughters were not added and that the suit is not maintainable as it is bad for non-joinder of parties.
111.The plaintiffs in O.S.No.90/2010 in their rejoinder admitted that late Rama
Moorthy had a living daughter and legal heirs of predeceased daughter of the plaintiff, but they did not choose to amend the plaint by adding all the legal heirs of late M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy. Hence, I came to a conclusion that the non-joinder of living daughter and legal heirs of predeceased daughter of the plaintiff is bad and the suit is not maintainable. This issue is also held against the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.90/2010 and are in favour of the defendants.
112.Issue No.5 in all the suits in batch:- In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed
and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 29th day of April, 2019.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KURNOOL.
Appendix of Evidence (Witnesses examined) For Plaintiffs:-
P.W.1: M.D.Y.Rama Moorthy (Recorded by Advocate Commissioner) P.W.2: K.Surendranath Reddy P.W.3: J.Satya Rangaiah P.W.4: T.M.Ramesh P.W.5: Pinjari Ayya Saheb P.W.6: Y.Purushotham
For Defendants:-
D.W.1: B.Pullaiah D.W.2: N.Balu Naik D.W.3: A.Sravan Kumar (Professional Technician) D.W.4: Venkata Chennaiah, Deputy Inspector of Survey & Land Records, R.D.O Office, Anantapur.
36
For Plaintiffs:-
Ex.A.1 is office copy of legal notice; Ex.A.2 is registration extract of sale deed dt.20.5.1996; Ex.A.3 is registration extract of sale deed dt.4.1.1965; Ex.A.4 is registration extract of sale deed dt.7.8.1971; Ex.A.5 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.6 is registration extract of sale deed dt.19.6.1979; Ex.A.7 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.8 is registration extract of sale deed dt.19.6.1979; Ex.A.9 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.10 is partition deed dt.26.4.1984; Ex.A.11 is copy of Order dt.21.4.2009 passed in W.P.No.3474/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Ex.A.12 is office copy of representation dt.5.6.2009; Ex.A.13 is blue print copy of layout plan; Ex.A.14 is copy of Award Notification No.511969 dt.28.3.1969; Ex.A.15 certified copy of registered sale deed dt.19.5.1995; Ex.A.16 registered sale deed dt.7.11.1984; Ex.A.17 is registered sale deed dt.23.12.1993; Ex.A.18 is registered sale deed dt.21.1.2003; Ex.A.19 is registered sale deed dt.6.10.2004; Ex.A.20 is death certificate of T.M.Ramdas dt.26.8.2000; Ex.21 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.15.2.1968; Ex.A.22 is office copy of legal notice issued to defendant; Ex.A.23 is postal receipt; Ex.A.24 is postal acknowledgment; Ex.A.25 is copy of layout plan; Ex.A.26 is Xerox copy of Award copy.
For Defendants:- Ex.B.1 is Authorization letter; Exs.B.2 to B.9 are sketches; Ex.B.10 is proceedings; Ex.B.11 is acknowledgment proceedings; Ex.B.12 is proceedings; Ex.B.13 is Award Proceedings; Ex.B.14 is Land Acquisition RCA/2017 dt.5.1.2018; Ex.B.15 is RCC 13/2017 dt.6.1.2018; Ex.B.16 is letter in L.Dis.No.A/34/2018 dt.12.1.2018.
PSCJ, KNL.
1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KURNOOL.
Present:- Sri A.Moses, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. Monday, the Twenty Ninth day of April, 2019.
O.S.No.90/2010 and its batch suits in
O.S.92/2010, O.S.No.94/2010,
O.S.No.96/2010 and O.S.No.476/2010
O.S.No.90/2010:
*** M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy (died) represented by his legal representatives
1) M.D.V.Rama Sarma
2) M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma
3) M.D.V.Madhava Krishna….Plaintiffs
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants
O.S.No.92/2010:
J.Satya Rangaiah…. Plaintiff
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants
O.S.No.94/2010:
K.Surendranath Reddy…. Plaintiff
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants 2
O.S.No.96/2010:
1) K.Ramakrishna Reddy (died) represented by his legal representatives plaintiffs 2 to 4 ***2) K.Lakshmi Devi ***3) K.Surendranatha Reddy ***4) K.Madhusudhana Reddy…. Plaintiffs (*** Impleaded as per Orders in I.A.NO.489/2017 dt.23.10.2017)
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants
O.S.No.476/2010:
1) T.M.Chowdamma
2) T.M.Ramesh
3) T.M.Jagadish
4) T.M.Anand Babu
5) T.M.Ranukamma
6) T.M.Manohar Babu
7) T.M.Aruna…. Plaintiffs
Versus
1) Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and Highway, Ministry of Shipping and Surface Transport, New Delhi.
2) State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by the Joint Collector, Kurnool-cum-Competent Authority and Land Acquisition Officer under National Highway Act, 1956, Kurnool.…. Defendants
These suits are coming up before me on 20.3.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.K.Vijaya Lakshmi, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Assistant
Government Pleader for Defendant No.1 and Government Pleader for Defendant
No.2 in all the batch suits, upon hearing both sides, after perusing the record and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:- 3
COMMON JUDGMENT
All the above suits are filed against the Government of India and
Government of Andhra Pradesh by different plaintiffs and the reliefs against the defendants are common and the survey numbers of the plaint schedule properties are also common. Both sides counsel filed a joint memo to conduct joint trial and to record evidence in O.S.No.90/2010. Accordingly, the evidence in O.S.No.90/2010 was recorded.
O.S.No.90/2010
This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.8,12,500/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
2.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently 4 after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
3.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
4.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah,
S/o Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
5.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masum”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
5
6.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
7.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy, S/o
Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam Sashtri,
3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind Babu, S/o
M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
8.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
9.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
6
10.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
11.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
12.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
13.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and 7 delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
14.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
15.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
16.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
17.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
8
18.On 25.1.2019 the following additional issues are framed:-
1) Whether oral partition took place during the life time of the plaintiff (M.D.Y.Rama Moorthy) and in that oral partition, the plaint schedule property was given right to look after the proceeding to the plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and to receive compensation in the suit?
2) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of the living daughter and L.Rs of predeceased daughter of the plaintiff (M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy)?
O.S.No.92/2010
19.This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.8,12,500/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
20.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being 9 heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
21.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
22.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah,
S/o Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
23.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masoom”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
10
24.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
25.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy,
S/o Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam
Sashtri, 3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind
Babu, S/o M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
26.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
27.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
11
28.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
29.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
30.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
31.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and 12 delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
32.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
33.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
34.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
35.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
13
O.S.No.94/2010
36.This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
37.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
14
38.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
39.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah, S/o
Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
40.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masoom”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
41.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in 15 favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
42.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy,
S/o Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam
Sashtri, 3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind
Babu, S/o M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
43.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
44.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
45.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
16
46.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
47.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
48.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
17
49.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
50.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
51.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
52.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
18
O.S.No.96/2010
53.This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
54.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
19
55.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
56.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah, S/o
Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
57.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masoom”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
58.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in 20 favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
59.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy,
S/o Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam
Sashtri, 3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind
Babu, S/o M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
60.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
61.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
62.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
21
63.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
64.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
65.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
22
66.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
67.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
68.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
69.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
23
O.S.No.476/2010
70.This is a suit to declare the title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequently to direct the defendants by way of mandatory injunction, directing to pay compensation of Rs.17,56,920/- for occupation of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per cent of the site together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of occupation till the date of payment with all other benefits as per law, to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the emulation and mental agony, and for costs of the suit.
71.The brief facts of the plaint are that:-
The defendants herein had initiated Land Acquisition Proceedings for the acquisition of the land abutting to N.H.7 for the purpose of widening the Nation
Highway by making a publication in Kurnool Edition Telugu Daily News Paper on 8.9.2005 under Section 3 (c) (i) of National Highway Act, 1956. In the Land
Acquisition Proceedings, even though the plaint schedule premises is proposed for acquisition, which is situated abutting the said N.H.7 towards west which belonged to the plaintiff, the name of the plaintiff was not included in the said notification for the reasons best known to the concerned Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway Authority. But some persons proclaiming themselves to be the staff of the National Highway
Authority came and earmarked a substantial potion of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff for the purpose of road widening. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff had sent a statutory legal notice to the said Authority putting forth his claim of title over the schedule property. But the 1st defendant has not considered the claim made by the plaintiff nor he gave a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and is said to have passed an award without hearing the plaintiff and without including the name of the plaintiff in the list of awardees. Subsequently after passing the award, the officials of the 1st defendant tried to interfere with the peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and to take possession of the same. Then the plaintiff was compelled to file a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in W.P.No.3474/2009 for a Writ of Mandamus.
24
72.The said Writ Petition was disposed off by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra
Pradesh on 26.2.2009 directing the defendant to consider the claim of the plaintiff and to pass an appropriate Award within 6 weeks with regard to the same in respect of the plaint schedule property before resorting to further steps of taking possession of the said property. But the 1st defendant without giving any opportunity of personal hearing and looking into documents and even before time prescribed by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has unilaterally and highhandedly occupied the place of the plaintiff on 6.6.2009 without paying any compensation for it. The total extent of land that existed in
Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village limits, Kallur mandal, Kurnool District was Ac.7.96 cents. The said land belonged to four brothers i.e. 1) Pinjari Masoom 2) Pinjari
Hassan 3) Pinjari Moulali and 4) Pinjari Salam Miah. The said land was amicably partitioned orally between them.
73.In the said division Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each, Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents. As such, all those persons were shown as “Joint Pattadars” in No.10 (1) Account of the Revenue
Department also. Out of them Pinjari Hassan Sab had sold his share of land of
Ac.1.90 cents in the said survey number in favour of one Jampala Eswaraiah, S/o
Jampala Veeranna under the registered sale deed dt.20.5.1961.
74.In the document the northern boundary is clearly described as ‘portion of the land of Pinjari Masoom”. Thereafter, the said land was sold by Jampala
Eswaraiah in favour of one Yerukali Chinna Madanna, under the registered sale deed dt.4.1.1965. The said Yerukali Chinna Madanna had in turn sold the said land in favour of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, a Firm represented by its Managing
Partners under registered agreement of sale dt.7.8.1971. Thereafter, the said Firm had laid plots in the said land and also the adjacent land in another survey number and got approved a layout in L.Dis.No.191/1971 under the proceedings of the Executive Officer of Kallur Gram Panchayat dt.10.1.1972.
75.In the said layout, one Illuru Venkata Subbaiah, S/o Chenchaiah of Kurnool town had purchased plot No.13 from the Firm M/s Sainath Traders, under the registered sale deed dt.10.3.1981. He in turn had sold the said plot to the plaintiff and 3 others jointly under the registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot No.14 was sold by the Firm in favour of one K.Bhaskar Rao, S/o K.Eswar Rao of Kurnool, under a registered sale deed dt.19.6.1978 and he in turn, had sold the said plot in 25 favour of plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981. Plot
No.15 was purchased by one Smt.Prema Bai, W/o K.Bhaskar Rao of Kurnool from the above said Firm under the registered sale deed dt.19.6.1979. The said Prema
Bai had in turn sold the said plot No.15 in favour of the plaintiff and three others under a registered sale deed dt.21.12.1981.
76.Thereafter, the plaintiff and three others viz., 1) M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy,
S/o Late M.D.Ramaiah, 2) P.Mallikarjuna Sasthri, S/o Late Sri P.Subramanyam
Sashtri, 3) K.Ramakrishna Reddy, S/o Late Sri K.Nagi Reddy and 4) M.Aravind
Babu, S/o M.Seshagiri Rao had partitioned the three plots i.e. Plot Nos.13, 14 and 15 under a registered partition deed dt.2.6.1984 dividing those plots among themselves. As such, the claimant is able to establish the clear and continuous flow of rights and title over the schedule property.
77.The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s plot is forming part of the land that was already acquired for the purposes of National Highway No.7 under the Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 is a total false and baseless pleading. The
Gram Panchayat, Kallur village played an important role for the above said market value proceedings under Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969, had approved a layout in favour of the plaintiff vendor’s vendor viz., M/s Sainath Traders, Kurnool in
L.Dis.No.191/1971 dt.10.1.1972.
78.In the light of the clear and continuous uninterrupted peaceful, exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property for more than 40 years by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title in their own right openly. The subject matter of the plaint schedule property is a very valuable property and the present day market value of the said land is more than Rs.2,50,000/- per cent. Because of the acquisition of substantial portion of the property of the plaintiff, the remaining small portion of the property after acquisition is also adversely affected since its market value is reduced drastically.
79.During pendency of the above suit the plaintiff died on 13.9.2018, intestate, leaving behind him the plaintiffs 2 to 4 as his only legal representatives to succeed to his entire estate, inclusive of the plaint schedule land. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as the right to sue survives on them. Hence, the suit.
26
80.The 2nd defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant and denied all the material allegations in the plaint. They submitted that the plaintiff filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of
Andhra Pradesh along with 3 others for the relief in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring the action of the defendant in interfering by threat of demolition and dispossession plot No.14, 15 and 16 including the existing shop building bearing D.No.81/342 of Sy.No.601/1 of Kallur village situated to adjacent to NH-7 leading from Kurnool to Gooty within the limits of Sainath Nagar, Kallur
Mandal of Kurnool Town without any due process of law as highly arbitrary, illegal jurisdiction and in violation of National Highway Act, 1956 and consequently to direct the 2nd defendant to decide the claim-cum-objection submitted by the plaintiff on 15.9.2005 in accordance with Sec.3 (2) of National Highway Act in the event of any valid notification in terms of Section 3 (1) of the said statue which is in force in accordance with law with due opportunity of being heard.
81.The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed the W.P.No.3474/2009 on 21.4.2009 with an observation that without expressing any opinion on merits the defendants 1 and 2 are directed to consider the representation dt.15.9.2005 and 21.6.2008 purported to have been filed by the plaintiff and pass appropriate order as per law within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The 2nd defendant passed an order dt.31.5.2009 basing on representation of plaintiff and as per High Court directions the land in Sy.No.601/B extent Ac.0.94 cents was already acquired for the formation of diversion road near National
Highway N.H.7 in Award No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969 by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Kurnool and the land vests in Government and Tahasildar, Kallur is directed to evict the unauthorized constructions and persons immediately from the land. The copy of the proceedings was served on plaintiff.
82.Accordingly the Tahasildar evicted the encroachers and handed over the land to the National Highway Authority of India for formation of the road and the road is formed. The subject property, vests with the Government since 1969 the original land owner Pinjari Masoom received compensation from the Government and delivered possession under Award No.5 of 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff not raised any objection at the time of Land Acquisition Proceedings and also at the time of passing award No.5/1969.
27
83.The registered sales pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff subsequent to the award is not binding and the same cannot override the Award No.5 to 1969. The vendors of the plaintiff nor their vendors have no right title to the plaint schedule property to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not challenge the proceedings of the 2nd defendant passed as per High Court directions under National Highway
AuthorityofIndiaActandthesaidordersofthe 2nd defendant became final. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. He further submitted that once Award is passed either under Land Acquisition Act or under
National Highway Act, 1956, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The figures shown in the particulars of claim is imaginary one. There is no cause of action for the suit as alleged. Hence, they prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
84.The defendants filed additional written statement after amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 by name M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy died leaving not only newly added plaintiffs as legal heirs but also some other legal heirs, and they are two daughters and one among them is predeceased leaving behind her children as her legal heirs. The newly added plaintiffs did not show the other said legal heirs who are also just and necessary parties to the proceedings either as the plaintiffs or as the defendants in the suit. Therefore the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
85.The plaintiffs also filed rejoinder by denying all the allegations in the written statement of the defendants.
86.On perusal of the pleadings, on either side documents filed, the following issues are settled for trial:-
1) Whether the suit is maintainable?
2) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for?
5) To what relief?
28
87.To prove the case of the plaintiffs in all the suits, the first plaintiff in
O.S.No.90/2010 was examined as P.W.1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.94/2010 was
examined as P.W.2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.92/2010 was examined as P.W.2. The 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.476/2010 was examined as P.W.4. P.W.5 is one Pinjari Ayya
Saheb is a 3rd party and one Y.Purushotham was examined as P.W.6. Thus, on the plaintiffs side P.Ws 1 to 6 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.26 are marked in all the suits. On the defendants side in all the suits D.Ws 1 to 4 are examined and Exs.B.1 to B.6 are marked on either side.
88.Issues 1 to 4 in all the suits in batch:- The burden of proving these issues are on the plaintiffs in all the suits. To prove the case of the plaintiff in
O.S.No.90/2010 he himself examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the entire plaint
contents as that of his evidence affidavit. He exhibited the following documents on behalf of the plaintiffs in all the above suits.
Ex.A.1 is office copy of legal notice; Ex.A.2 is registration extract of sale deed dt.20.5.1996; Ex.A.3 is registration extract of sale deed dt.4.1.1965; Ex.A.4 is registration extract of sale deed dt.7.8.1971; Ex.A.5 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.6 is registration extract of sale deed dt.19.6.1979; Ex.A.7 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.8 is registration extract of sale deed dt.19.6.1979; Ex.A.9 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981;
Ex.A.10 is partition deed dt.26.4.1984; Ex.A.11 is copy of Order dt.21.4.2009 passed in W.P.No.3474/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Ex.A.12 is office copy of representation dt.5.6.2009; Ex.A.13 is blue print copy of layout plan;
Ex.A.14 is copy of Award Notification No.511969 dt.28.3.1969; Ex.A.15 certified copy of registered sale deed dt.19.5.1995; Ex.A.16 registered sale deed dt.7.11.1984;
Ex.A.17 is registered sale deed dt.23.12.1993; Ex.A.18 is registered sale deed dt.21.1.2003; Ex.A.19 is registered sale deed dt.6.10.2004; Ex.A.20 is death certificate of T.M.Ramdas dt.26.8.2000; Ex.21 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.15.2.1968; Ex.A.22 is office copy of legal notice issued to defendant;
Ex.A.23 is postal receipt; Ex.A.24 is postal acknowledgment; Ex.A.25 is copy of layout plan and Ex.A.26 is Xerox copy of Award copy.
The plaintiff in O.S.No.94/2010 was examined as P.W.2, the plaintiff in
O.S.No.92/2010 was examined as P.W.3 and the 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.476/2010
was examined as P.W.4, all of them reiterated their respective plaint contents as that of their evidence affidavits.
29
P.W.5 is Pinjari Ayya Saheb, S/o Late P.Salam Miah who deposed that his father sold one acre out of Ac.2.26 cents to one T.M.Ramdas, husband of plaintiff in O.S.No.476/2010.
P.W.6 is one Y.Purushotham is a third party who deposed that his father
Y.Chinna Madanna sold Ac.1.90 cents to Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool in the year 1971. The National Highway Authority had not acquired Ac.1.90 cents of land under Award No.5/1969 that was passed on 28.3.1969.
This is all the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiffs in all the suits.
To prove the case of the defendants The Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit,
NHAI, Kurnool was examined as D.W.1 who reiterated the entire written statement contents as that of his evidence affidavit and denied the case of the plaintiffs and deposed that under D.2 the lands of plaintiffs were acquired and that payment of compensation does not arise. He exhibited the following documents:-
Ex.B.1 is Authorization letter; Exs.B.2 to B.9 are sketches; Ex.B.10 is proceedings; Ex.B.11 is acknowledgment proceedings; Ex.B.12 is proceedings;
Ex.B.13 is Award Proceedings; Ex.B.14 is Land Acquisition RCA/2017 dt.5.1.2018;
Ex.B.15 is RCC 13/2017 dt.6.1.2018 and Ex.B.16 is letter in L.Dis.No.A/34/2018 dt.12.1.2018.
D.W.2 N.Balu Naik, Mandal Surveyor, Tahasildar Office, Kallur deposed that he was directed by B.Pullaiah, Spl. Deputy Collector, NH-7, Kurnool to conduct survey in Sy.No.601 of Kallur village. Accordingly, he conducted and Exs.B.5 plans are drawn by him.
D.W.3 is one A.Sravan Kumar, working as Professional Technical who deposed and denied the entire case of the plaintiffs. He deposed that the sales of the plaintiffs are subsequent to award and they cannot be taken into consideration.
D.W.4 is one Venkata Chennaiah, Deputy Inspector of Surveyor, RDO,
Ananthapuram deposed that on the instructions of Tahasildar, he conducted survey in Sy.No.601/1B of Kallur village of Kallur village.
30
This is all the oral and documentary evidence on the defendants side in a nutshell.
89.On careful perusal of the evidence on either side the case of the plaintiffs in all the suits, their case is common and contended that they are the absolute owners of their respective plaint schedule properties, which are acquired by
National Highway Authority for laying four way lanes in the year 2008 and that they are claiming compensation.
90.The case of the defendants that the plaint schedule properties are not belonging to the plaintiff and they are National Highway properties which were acquired much earlier in the year 1969 while widening the roads by the then
Revenue Divisional Officer, Land Acquisition by awarding and giving compensation to the then land owners. So question of re-acquiring the same land in the year 2008 will not arise at all, and the question of awarding compensation will not arise at all.
91.The plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 in his cross examination admitted that he filed Ex.A.2 to show that the land in Sy.No.601/1 the extent of Ac.7.96 cents belongs to Pinjari Masoom and others. He further deposed that what was acquired in the year 1969 by the Government was only Ac.0.94 cents in Sy.No.601/1 belongs to Pinjari Masoom. His predecessors in title did not raise any objection for the acquisition proceedings in the year 1969.
92.He further deposed in his cross examination that he filed Ex.A.2 to show that the land in Sy.No.601/1 belongs to Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan, Pinjari
Moulali and Pinjari Salam Miah. He has not filed any revenue record to show that they are the pattadars in 10 (1) Account and he admitted that in all the registered documents filed by him there is a recital that the pattadar pass books for the land in Sy.No.60/1 was not filed.
93.On examination of the evidence of P.W.1 it is an admitted fact by the plaintiff and their witnesses that some of the land was acquired in the year 1969 through Award No.5/1969. The burden lies on the plaintiffs that the land acquired in the year 1969 is not very same land shown in the plaint schedules of the batch suits.
31
94.The prime contention of the plaintiffs in all the suits that Pinjari Masoom had brothers, and the suit schedule properties belonged to all brothers and they were partitioned among them and they sold the same to the vendors of the plaintiffs and thereafter the plaintiffs purchased them through their vendors. The plaintiffs have not produced any evidence to show that there was a partition between the brothers of Pinjari Masoom and himself. When the plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence for partition as alleged both in their plaint the question of purchasing properties from their vendors does not arise.
95.On examination of the evidence of P.W.2 in his cross examination he admitted that the Government had acquired land of Ac.0.94 cents in Sy.No.601/1B from Pinjari Masoom in the year 1969. He further admitted that at the time of acquiring the land the Government paid compensation to Pinjari Masoom and the said compensation was paid in the year 1969 itself. He admitted that Pinjari
Masoom had handed over the possession of Ac.0.94 cents of land to the
Government in the year 1969 as per the Award No.5/1969. The brothers of Pinjari
Masoom or their predecessors in title did not submit any objections before the
Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer for awarding compensation to Pinjari Masoom.
96.The admissions made by P.W.3 is the same as that of P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.4 is that when they approached the 2nd defendant herein his staff had orally expressed that the plaint schedule land to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents which form part of the land was already acquired for the purpose of N.H.7 under Award
No.5/1969 dt.28.3.1969. He further deposed that in fact what was acquired in
Sy.No.601/1B of Kallur Gram Panchayat was only Ac.0.94 cents. Pinjari Masoom alone was made claimant over the said portion of the land acquired.
97.P.W.5 deposed that in fact only the land of Ac.0.94 cents were acquired in the land acquisition proceedings under Award No.5/1969.
98.In the cross examination of P.W.1 he stated that he has not filed documents to show that the property belonged to Pinjari Masoom and his brothers and he did not file any document to show that Pinjari Masoom and his brothers have effected oral partition and that Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hasan and Pinjari Moulali got
Ac.1.90 cents each while Pinjari Salam Miah got Ac.2.26 cents towards the respective shares in oral partition. He do not know whether the said persons have 32 obtained separate pattadar pass books and title deeds for the lands allotted to their respective shares. He admitted that he did not file any document to show that
Sy.No.601/1 was sub-divided as Sy.No.601/1B after passing of the award and that only Ac.0.94 cents of land of Pinjari Masoom was acquired under the Award
No.5/1969.
99.On examination of the evidence of P.W.4 and in his cross examination he stated that he did not make any personal enquiry to find out whether the said
Pinjari Masoom, Pinjari Hassan, Pinjari Moulali and Pinjari Salama Miah are having any right or title over the disputed land. He did not file any document to show that the said four brothers are having any title over the disputed land. He do not know what are the other properties that were partitioned among the four brothers along with the land in the plaint schedule survey number as on the date of the oral partition effected among the said four brothers. His father purchased the property in the year 1968 after getting the land surveyed by competent Mandal
Surveyor. He cannot say the name of the Surveyor who did the survey. He did not file report of the Surveyor before the Court and he has not seen the report of the
Surveyor or its copy till date. He did not file copy of 10 (1) Adangal to show that the plaint schedule property was in the name of the vendors of his father till the purchase of the same by his father. He did not file any copy of adangal to show that his father possessed the property from 1968 to 1972. He did not get any survey conducted to show that the land acquired under Award under Ex.A.26.
Award copy in Award No.6/1969 is entirely different from the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.476/2010. He did not seek to appoint Advocate Commissioner to measure and locate the plaint schedule property in O.S.No.476/2010. Except his evidence he do not have any document to show that the land acquired under
Ex.A.26 is different from the property claimed by him. He did not issue any legal notice to the vendors of his father and did not met them after knowing about the acquisition of the land under Award in Ex.A.26.
100.On examination of the evidence of P.W.5 he deposed that he was the child at the time of execution of sale deed executed by his father and he do not know the details and measurements of the land sold by his father and the remaining land. Thus the evidence of P.W.5 is no way useful to prove the case of the plaintiffs.
33
101.In his cross examination he admitted that he was not present when the land was surveyed at request of other persons. He do not know any records regarding the acquisition of lands in the year 1969, and he has not seen the Award regarding the disputed survey number. He cannot say the particulars of the partition effected between him and his brothers.
102.So far as the evidence of P.W.6 is concerned he do not know the full details of the documents in favour of the plaintiff and he stated that the sale deed on behalf of Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool, might have been executed by Narappa and
Venkata Subbaiah. Thus, it is clear from his admission that he do not know anything about the properties. He did not file any document to show that the purchase of the property by his father and sale of the same property by his father to Sri Sainath Traders, Kurnool. He did not file any copy of adangal pertaining to the suit schedule property before the Court. He did not secure any adangal for the said property and did not verify the same. He do not know how much extent of land was acquired under the said award, how much compensation was ordered to be paid under the said award. Thus, the evidence of P.W.6 is no way useful to prove the case of the plaintiff.
103.On examination of the evidence of plaintiffs coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.26 it is clear that they could not positively established the alleged oral partition and even that they are not aware of the alleged partition. The plaintiffs also failed to produce any evidence to show their vendors’ possession over the plaint schedule properties. The evidence of the plaintiff’s further clarifies that they never conducted any survey either before or after 1969 acquisition of land and even they never decided to conduct any survey by seeking permission of the Court in order to bring the material available point is on their side.
104.It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs approached the Hon’ble High Court and as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court the joint Collector passed orders and the plaintiffs have not preferred any appeal or revision against the said order dt.31.5.2009 and P.Ws 1 to 4 admitted the same in their cross examination.
105.P.W.2 clearly admitted that the Joint Collector passed orders on 31.5.2009 denying their claim on the ground that the Award was already passed earlier by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kurnool. The Joint Collector passed orders stating that they constructed the shops illegally in the land of the Government and with 34 respect to eviction, and the Tahasildar was directed to evict them, and the
Tahasildar evicted them and handed over the possession to the National Highway
Authority and he did not file any Writ Petition against him for forcibly evicting him.
106.During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff in O.S.No.90/2010 died and after his death his sons only were brought on record as his legal heirs and also as plaintiffs. The defendants took objection raising that the deceased plaintiff is having daughters, by way of additional written statement. Then the added plaintiffs filed rejoinder accepting that the deceased plaintiff is having daughters but denied that they are not considerable as legal heirs stating that during the pendency of the suit an oral partition took place and the alleged plaint schedule property is fallen to their shares only. No evidence is produced to that effect. The plaintiffs did not choose to let in any evidence on the additional issues to prove their contention mentioned in the rejoinder. The newly added plaintiffs in O.S.No.90/2010 admitted that the deceased plaintiff is having daughters and with regard to the fact that whether the earlier partition was took place or not has to be proved by the newly added plaintiffs in O.S.No.90/2010.
107.In view of the foregoing reasons, I came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title over the respective schedule properties in all the above suits and the plaintiffs are not entitled for the compensation as prayed for.
108.Thus issue No.1 is held in favour of the plaintiffs as it is maintainable. Issue
No.2 is also held in favour of plaintiffs and issues 3 and 4 are held against the plaintiffs and are in favour of the defendants.
109.Additional Issue No.1 O.S.No.90/2010:- The newly added plaintiffs in
O.S.No.90/2010 taken a plea during the life of the plaintiff (M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy)
there was an oral partition. The plaint schedule property was given prior to looking after the proceedings to the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and to receive compensation in the suit. Though there was a pleading no evidence is let in by the plaintiffs to prove the oral partition. Thus, this issue is also held against the plaintiffs and is in favour of the defendants.
35
110.Additional Issue No.2 in O.S.No.90/2010:- The defendants contended that all the legal representatives of late M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy were not brought on record and only the sons of Rama Moorthy were added in O.S.No.90/2010 and his living daughters were not added and that the suit is not maintainable as it is bad for non-joinder of parties.
111.The plaintiffs in O.S.No.90/2010 in their rejoinder admitted that late Rama
Moorthy had a living daughter and legal heirs of predeceased daughter of the plaintiff, but they did not choose to amend the plaint by adding all the legal heirs of late M.D.Y. Rama Moorthy. Hence, I came to a conclusion that the non-joinder of living daughter and legal heirs of predeceased daughter of the plaintiff is bad and the suit is not maintainable. This issue is also held against the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.90/2010 and are in favour of the defendants.
112.Issue No.5 in all the suits in batch:- In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed
and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 29th day of April, 2019.
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KURNOOL.
Appendix of Evidence (Witnesses examined) For Plaintiffs:-
P.W.1: M.D.Y.Rama Moorthy (Recorded by Advocate Commissioner) P.W.2: K.Surendranath Reddy P.W.3: J.Satya Rangaiah P.W.4: T.M.Ramesh P.W.5: Pinjari Ayya Saheb P.W.6: Y.Purushotham
For Defendants:-
D.W.1: B.Pullaiah D.W.2: N.Balu Naik D.W.3: A.Sravan Kumar (Professional Technician) D.W.4: Venkata Chennaiah, Deputy Inspector of Survey & Land Records, R.D.O Office, Anantapur.
36
For Plaintiffs:-
Ex.A.1 is office copy of legal notice; Ex.A.2 is registration extract of sale deed dt.20.5.1996; Ex.A.3 is registration extract of sale deed dt.4.1.1965; Ex.A.4 is registration extract of sale deed dt.7.8.1971; Ex.A.5 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.6 is registration extract of sale deed dt.19.6.1979; Ex.A.7 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.8 is registration extract of sale deed dt.19.6.1979; Ex.A.9 is registration extract of sale deed dt.21.12.1981; Ex.A.10 is partition deed dt.26.4.1984; Ex.A.11 is copy of Order dt.21.4.2009 passed in W.P.No.3474/2009 by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Ex.A.12 is office copy of representation dt.5.6.2009; Ex.A.13 is blue print copy of layout plan; Ex.A.14 is copy of Award Notification No.511969 dt.28.3.1969; Ex.A.15 certified copy of registered sale deed dt.19.5.1995; Ex.A.16 registered sale deed dt.7.11.1984; Ex.A.17 is registered sale deed dt.23.12.1993; Ex.A.18 is registered sale deed dt.21.1.2003; Ex.A.19 is registered sale deed dt.6.10.2004; Ex.A.20 is death certificate of T.M.Ramdas dt.26.8.2000; Ex.21 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.15.2.1968; Ex.A.22 is office copy of legal notice issued to defendant; Ex.A.23 is postal receipt; Ex.A.24 is postal acknowledgment; Ex.A.25 is copy of layout plan; Ex.A.26 is Xerox copy of Award copy.
For Defendants:- Ex.B.1 is Authorization letter; Exs.B.2 to B.9 are sketches; Ex.B.10 is proceedings; Ex.B.11 is acknowledgment proceedings; Ex.B.12 is proceedings; Ex.B.13 is Award Proceedings; Ex.B.14 is Land Acquisition RCA/2017 dt.5.1.2018; Ex.B.15 is RCC 13/2017 dt.6.1.2018; Ex.B.16 is letter in L.Dis.No.A/34/2018 dt.12.1.2018.
PSCJ, KNL.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE :: KURNOOL.
Present: Sri A. Moses,
Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.
Wednesday, the First day of May, 2019.
SESSIONS CASE NO.364/2018
State: Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Kurnool. … Complainant
Versus
1) Sandhyapogu Vinay, Aged 20 years, S/o Srinivasulu, R/o H.No.41/473/4, Saibaba Nagar, Kurnool Town, SC–Madiga, Car Driver.
2) Gadda Siva, Aged 26 years, S/o G.Mohan, R/o H.No.41/473-59, Saibaba Nagar, Kurnool town, SC-Madiga, Car Driver.
3) Sandhyapogu Srinivasulu, Aged 40 years, S/o Anand, R/o H.No.41/473/4, Saibaba Nagar, Kurnool Town, SC-Madiga. (died) – case abated.
4) Sandhapogu Savari, Aged 28 years, S/o Ramudu, R/o H.No.41-473/66-S, Saibaba Nagar, Kurnool Town, SC-Madiga, Tractor Driver. … Accused
This case came up before me on 29.4.2019 for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and
Sri S.Iqbal Basha, Advocates for Accused Nos.1,2 and 4, upon hearing both sides, after perusing the material available on record, and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool I Town Police Station filed charge sheet against A.1 to A.4 (case against A.3 is abated) alleging that on 11.7.2017 at about 9.30 PM while L.W.1 was outside the hotel, A.1 and A.3 went to Arabian Biryani Hotel located at Vaddegeri main road. A.3 gave an amount of Rs.120/- to L.W.2 Mohammad Farooq Ahamed to give two parcels of biryani packets. Later, A.1 and A.3 argued and demanded Farooq Ahamed to give five biryani packets by giving the cash for the two packets only, and the same was denied. L.W.2 Farooq Ahamed who informed the matter to
L.W.7 Shaik Riyaz. At that time A.1 to A.4 with an intention to kill L.W.2
Page 2
Mohammad Farooq Ahamad and L.W.7 Shaik Riyaz picked up quarrel with them, beat them with hands and legs in front of the hotel. After intervention of L.W.3 Mohammad Azaruddin and L.W.4 Mohammad Ismail the accused went into the hotel. While L.W.7 Shaik Riyaz and workers i.e. L.Ws 2 to 4 (Shaik Fazul Rahim, Mohammad Farooq Ahamad and Mohammad Azaruddin respectively) were shutting down the hotel shutter, A.1 to A.4 went into the hotel by dissuading the shutter and threw the stones into the hotel while opening the shutter. After opening the shutter A.1, A.2 and A.4 rushed into the hotel, A.1 threw the big stone over the workers, A.2 beat Shaik Riyaz with iron rod and A.4 attempted to kill L.W.7 Shaik Riyaz with hunting sickle. As a result, L.W.7 Riyaz sustained bleeding injuries to his head and right hand. Later A.1 to A.4 left there on their motor cycles. Basing on the complaint of L.W.7 Shaik Riyaz this case is registered and investigated into.
2.During the course of investigation L.W.13 B.R.Krishnaiah, Inspector of
Police, Kurnool I Town P.S., examined the witnesses cited in the charge sheet and he examined the scene of offence and found C.C Cameras at the hotel and displayed the same with the help of L.W.6 Syed Hussain in the presence of mediators and recorded CC Camera footages. He also seized CC
Camera footages recorded at Camera-1 and Camera-2 in between the time of 21.30 hours to 21.55 hours by copying into DVD by L.W.6 Syed Hussain. On 15.7.2017 A.1 to A.4 were arrested and were sent to remand. After completion of his investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 307 r/w Sec.34 IPC.
3.The learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 307 r/w Sec.34 IPC. As the offence under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the
Sessions Division, Kurnool under Sec.209 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Principal
District Court, Kurnool after perusal of the material made over this case to this Court to conduct trial according to law.
Page 3
4.On appearance of the accused they were examined and charges under
Sections 323, 324 and 307 r/w Sec.34 IPC were framed against them. The contents of the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 10 and marked
Exs.P.1 to P.16.
6.On the closure of the evidence on the prosecution side the accused were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C in respect of the incriminating evidence found against them and they denied the same as false and reported no defence.
7.Heard both sides.
8.Point for determination is:-
Whether the prosecution proved its case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 307 r/w Sec.34
IPC?
9.Point:- To prove the case of prosecution the defacto-complainant was examined as P.W.1 who deposed that he never saw the accused at any point of time. L.W.7 Shaik Riyaz is his younger brother who is running biryani hotel near Vaddegeri Main Road, Kurnool Town. He do not know who caused injuries against them. He lodged complaint with the police. One of the constable drafted the complaint and he do not know the contents shown to him, but the complaint bears his signature. He was examined by the police and stated to them and he was not present at the time of the incident. Ex.P.1 is the signature on the alleged complaint dt.12.7.2017. This witness turned hostile and that he was cross examined by the prosecution and his Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement was marked as Ex.P.2.
P.Ws 2 to 4 are the alleged eye witnesses to the incident also not supported the case of the prosecution and that they were cross examined and their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements were marked as Exs.P.3 to P.5 respectively.
Page 4
P.Ws 5, 6 and 7 are the panchayatdars for the alleged panchanama (Ex.P.6) dt.13.7.2017 and they admitted their signatures on the panchanama, but they denied the contents therein and deposed that the police obtained their signatures by calling them to the Police Station and that their signatures were marked as Exs.P.7 to P.9.
P.W.8 is the Doctor deposed and he examined P.W.4 and L.W.2
Mohammad Farooq Ahamed on 11.7.2017 and issued Exs.P.10 and P.11 wound certificates.
P.W.9 is the Panchayatdar for arrest panchanama who also denied the arrest before him and drafting of panchanama. He admitted his signature on the panchanama dt.15.7.2017 and that his signature was marked as Ex.P.12.
P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer deposed that on 12.7.2017 while he was present in I Town Police Station, he received a complaint from P.W.1 and the same is marked as Ex.P.13. On the basis of Ex.p.13 he registered the same as a case in Cr.No.70/2017 and issued Ex.P.4 printed F.I.R. He took up investigation and examined P.W.1 in the Police Station. On the next day he resumed further investigation, proceeded to the scene of offence situated at
Arabian Biryani Hotel. He examined the witnesses cited in the charge sheet and recorded their statements under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. On examination of the scene of offence, he found C.C cameras in the hotel. Then, he secured the presence of P.Ws 6 and 7 and also C.C Camera Technician P.W.5 and then
P.W.5 collected C.C footage and copied the same in the D.V.D in the presence of the mediators. On observation of the scene he prepared rough sketch of the scene under Ex.P.15. He also seized C.C.Cameras, stones big and small in the presence of P.Ws 6 and 7. Ex.P.16 is the seizure panchanama dt.13.7.2017 at 1.00 PM. After receipt of wound certificate he filed charge sheet against the accused.
This is all the gist of the evidence on the prosecution side.
Page 5
10.On careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 10, the specific case of the prosecution is that the accused quarreled with L.W.2 Mohammad
Farooq Ahamad and L.W.7 Shaik Riyaz, where Shaik Riyaz was running a hotel, the accused went to the hotel and quarreled with them and during the quarrel A.1 to A.4 beat L.W.2 Mohammad Farooq Ahamad and L.W.7 Shaik
Riyaz and they received injuries in the hands of the accused on the complaint of P.W.1 under Ex.P.13 this case was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation P.W.10 also seized material objects and the C.C. Camera footages wherein the acts of the accused were clearly visible.
11.The prosecution examined the defacto-complainant and other eye witnesses and they are turned hostile including the injured witnesses. Though the witnesses were cross examined and marked their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has not suggested any strong motive to speak against the case of the prosecution except suggesting that due to compromise they are speaking false.
12.The only evidence available on record is P.W.10. The evidence of
P.W.10 is not supported by the alleged eye witnesses of the Panchanamas.
P.W.10 visited the scene of offence twice but he did not observe the
C.C Cameras found in the hotel and the same was admitted by him during his cross examination. Thus the seizure of material objects is also not proved.
The arrest mediators also turned hostile. P.W.4 being the injured witness and
L.W.2 Mohammad Farooq is also another injured witness deposed that they received injuries by falling from a motor bike. P.W.1 being the defacto- complainant also stated that he was not present at the time of the incident, one of the constable drafted the complaint and obtained his signature on the same.
13.Thus, there is no believable evidence on record to come to a conclusion that the accused committed offences and that the accused are entitled for an acquittal.
Page 6
14.In the result, A.1, A.2 and A.4 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 307 r/w Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted under Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the respective charges framed against the accused. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and they are set at liberty. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Case against A.3 is abated as he died.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by them,
corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 1st day of May, 2019.
PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
KURNOOL.
Appendix of Evidence (Witnesses examined)
For Prosecution:For Defence:
P.W.1: Shaik Fazul Rehman
P.W.2: Azaruddin
P.W.3: Saya Nagaraju
P.W.4: Shaik Riaz None
P.W.5: Syed Hussain
P.W.6: Saya Nagaraju
P.W.7: Boda Raju
P.W.8: Dr.P.Ajay Kumar
P.W.9: B.Vali
P.W.10: B.R.Krishnaiah, CI of Police, I Town P.S., Kurnool.
Exhibits marked For Prosecution: For Defence:
Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on the complaint
Ex.P.2: Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1
Ex.P.3: Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2
Ex.P.4: Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3
Page 7
Ex.P.5: Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4
Ex.P.6: Signature of P.W.5 in Panchanama dt.13.7.2017
Ex.P.7: Relevant portion in Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5
Ex.P.8: Signature of P.W.6 in Panchanama dt.13.7.2017
Ex.P.9: Signature of P.W.7 in Panchanama dt.13.7.2017
Ex.P.10: Wound Certificate of P.W.1 issued by P.W.8
Ex.P.11: Wound Certificate of L.W.2 Farooq Ahamad issued by P.W.8
Ex.P.12: Signature of P.W.9 in Panchanama dt.15.7.2017
Ex.P.13: Complaint
Ex.P.14: Printed F.I.R
Ex.P.15: Rough sketch of scene of offence
Ex.P.16: Seizure Panchanama dt.13.7.2017
Material objects marked
Nil
PASJ, KNL.
TABULAR STATEMENT UNDER RULE 67 OF CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE :: KURNOOL.
Present: Sri A. Moses,
Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.
Wednesday, the First day of May, 2019.
SESSIONS CASE NO.364/2018
1Name of the P.S & Cr.No.:Cr.No.70/2017 of I Town P.S., Kurnool 2Sessions Case No.:364/2018 3Section of law:Under Sections 323, 324 and 307 r/w Sec.34 IPC. 4Name of the accused:1) Sandhyapogu Vinay, Aged 20 years, S/o Srinivasulu, R/o H.No.41/473/4, Saibaba Nagar, Kurnool Town, SC–Madiga, Car Driver.
2) Gadda Siva, Aged 26 years, S/o G.Mohan, R/o H.No.41/473-59, Saibaba Nagar, Kurnool town, SC-Madiga, Car Driver.
3) Sandhyapogu Srinivasulu, Aged 40 years, S/o Anand, R/o H.No.41/473/4, Saibaba Nagar, Kurnool Town, SC-Madiga. (died) – case abated.
4) Sandhapogu Savari, Aged 28 years, S/o Ramudu, R/o H.No.41-473/66-S, Saibaba Nagar, Kurnool Town, SC-Madiga, Tractor Driver. 5Date of occurrence of offence:11-07-2017 6Date of complaint :11-07-2017 7Date of apprehension of :16-07-2017 accused 8Date of release of accused:05-09-2017 (A.1 & A.2) 04-08-2017 (A.4) 9Date of commitment of case:18-06-2018 10Date of commencement of trial:26-02-2019 11Date of close of trial:29-04-2019 12Date of sentence or order:01-05-2019 13(a)Explanation for delay : –
(b) In the trial Court:- The record in PRC.No.45/2017 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool was submitted to the Court of Hon’ble Principal
Sessions Judge, Kurnool on 18-06-2018 and the same was numbered as
Sessions Case No.364/2018 by the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool
and made over the same to the Court for disposal according to law. This case records received by this Court on 20-12-2018. The accused made their appearance before this Court on 11-01-2019. On 06-02-2019 charges were framed. On 15-02-2019 the Court fixed the trial schedule. On 26-02-2019
Page 2
P.Ws 1 to 3 were examined, on 27-02-2019 P.Ws 4 to 6 were examined, on 28-02-2019 P.W.7 was examined, on 01-03-2019 P.W.8 was examined, on 27-03-2019 P.W.9 was examined, on 25-04-2019 P.W.10 was examined, and on the same day prosecution evidence is closed. On 29-04-2019 examination of the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C is conducted. Judgment pronounced on 01-05-2019.
PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
KURNOOL.
Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Registrar, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada through the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Kurnool.
Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Kurnool.
Copy to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool.
Order Record 1,316 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EP/100098/2013 | SMT. N.PRAMEELAMMA vs Vs1. RAMUDU AND mEKALA RAJU | 16 Sep 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| OS/111/2018 | J.Md.Iqbal Basha vs K.Lakshmanna | 16 Sep 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| OS/251/2017 | S.Khadar Hussain Vali vs S.Md.Ismail and another | 14 Sep 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| EP/100279/2015 | Satram Boya Maddamma vs THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR | 13 Sep 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| EP/100281/2015 | Satram Chinna Sunkanna vs The Spl. Deputy Collector, | 13 Sep 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| EP/100314/2008 | G.Pedda Rangamma and 2 others vs Dist.Collector and another , Kurnool | 13 Sep 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| OS/621/2012 | B.Krishna Alias B.Krishnaiah vs G.Ramanjaneyulu | 13 Sep 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| EP/44/2019 | Syndicate Bank Main Branch Kurnool vs D.Rajeswari and another | 11 Sep 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| OS/331/2013 | K.Ramachandra Reddy vs B.Seshi Reddy | 09 Sep 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| EP/177/2016 | C.G.Sudhakar vs V.Balaji | 06 Sep 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| EP/100266/2016 | M.Gayathri Enterprises, vs G.Venkatesham | 06 Sep 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| OS/333/2016 | Uma Maheswara Enterprises rep., by its Managing Pa vs Md.Afzal died rep. by his legal heirs and 3 others | 06 Sep 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| EP/100146/2017 | G.Lakshmi vs K.Samuel | 05 Sep 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| IP/18/2018 | P.Pullanna @ Pullaiah vs Ediga Anasuyamma | 05 Sep 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100016/2007 | M.Nagendrudu and 2 others vs M.Venkata Ramana and 16 others | 04 Sep 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| EP/100044/2018 | B.V.Ramana vs Dr.K.G.Govinda Reddy | 04 Sep 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| OS/223/2018 | Vaduguru Krishna Mohan vs Gantla Venkata Ramana | 04 Sep 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| SC/41/2019 | State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Dhone Rural P.S. vs Yerukali Galeti Chiranjeevi | 04 Sep 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| SC/345/2018 | Sub-Inspector of Police, Kurnool Railway PS vs Kallumadi Sowjanya and 2 others | 04 Sep 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/6/2017 | E.Parasuram Goud vs E.Madhavi | 04 Sep 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| OS/497/2015 | K.V.SIVA PRASAD vs M.SRINIVASULU REDDY, | 31 Aug 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| EP/48/2019 | Hymavathi vs K.Yella Rama Kapileswar | 30 Aug 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| H.M.O.P/34/2018 | B. Shiva Kumar vs B. Lalitha | 30 Aug 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100031/2017 | R.Victoria Rani vs K.Md.Shabeera Begum | 29 Aug 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| SC/205/2019 | The State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Ulindakonda P.S vs Patan Imran Khan | 29 Aug 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| EP/100071/2017 | Kalva Veerabramam vs P.Pushparaj | 28 Aug 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| ELECOP/1/2016 | G.Narayana vs The District Collector cum District Election Autho | 28 Aug 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| IP/127/2015 | G. NAGESARA RAO vs G. HARSAVSRDHAN AND OTHERES | 27 Aug 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| SC/19/2019 | State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri P.S. vs Golla Boini Ramanjineyulu | 27 Aug 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| EP/100021/2015 | G.Nageshwar Rao vs G.Harshavardhan | 26 Aug 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| OS/21/2019 | G.Srinivasulu vs Chethula Venkata Thathaiah | 26 Aug 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| OS/39/2019 | Pothuraju Sekhar vs P.C.Venkateswarlu died by his L.Rs Smt.S.Nagabhusamma and 5 others | 26 Aug 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/57/2018 | Golla Ashok vs Smt.Golla Madhavi | 26 Aug 2019 | Copy of Decree | — |
| OS/1/2018 | A.Virupakshi Reddy vs A.Krishnavenacharulu | 20 Aug 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| OS/339/2018 | E.Venkatarami Reddy vs L.Dowmani | 20 Aug 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| IP/57/2018 | P.Rajeswara Rao vs R.Beema Reddy and 3 others | 19 Aug 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| OS/179/2017 | G.Nagendra Nath Yadav vs Dr. D.Asha | 19 Aug 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| EP/100117/2016 | M.Thirupathaiah vs M.Pedda Maddilety | 16 Aug 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100182/2017 | Padmavatamma vs Akki Ramanjaneyulu | 16 Aug 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100331/2013 | K.Divya vs SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR L.A. | 16 Aug 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| OS/109/2014 | B.Sudharshan Reddy vs C.A.Venkateswara Varma and others | 16 Aug 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| OS/407/2017 | P.Pullaiah vs P.Giri Prasad | 16 Aug 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/47/2017 | N.Ramalakshmi and N.Ramakrishnudu vs Nil. | 16 Aug 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| OS/471/2014 | A. Vasundaramma vs S. Vahid | 13 Aug 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| EP/77/2019 | BUGGANA B.BHASKAR REDDY vs PALAM RAMESWAR REDDY | 09 Aug 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| IP/34/2015 | Batchu Kubera Gupta and another. vs M.Siri Babu and 70 others | 09 Aug 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| IP/54/2017 | D.Ramanjaneyulu vs R.Pullanna | 09 Aug 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| IP/85/2015 | M.SUDHA MANI AND OTHERHOUSE NO 40-809-1-B1 DHRMA P vs B. KUBERA GUPTHA OTHERES | 09 Aug 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| OS/23/2019 | N.Adi Lakshmamma vs I.Padmanabha Reddy | 09 Aug 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/86/2017 | E.Pavan Kumar Reddy vs R.Navya Priya | 09 Aug 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100189/2017 | Doola Varalakshmi vs P.Venkateswarlu | 08 Aug 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| IP/39/2017 | M.Venkataramana Reddy vs M.Yella Sekhar Reddy and 38 others | 08 Aug 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| OS/343/2017 | B.Hema Latha vs C.Rama Mohan Reddy | 08 Aug 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| OS/381/2018 | Dr.G.Praveen Kumar Reddy vs P.Siddaiah and 3 others | 08 Aug 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| OS/423/2016 | Sri B.N.Saketh Singh vs K.Geetha | 08 Aug 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/2/2016 | v. prsad vs Vsn. shymalamma | 07 Aug 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| EP/100181/2017 | Uma Maheswara Enterprises vs Asmith Ali and others | 06 Aug 2019 | Copy of other | — |
| H.M.O.P/8/2019 | Desavath Renuka BaI vs Disavath Ramu Naik | 06 Aug 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| H.M.O.P/76/2018 | Boya Sujatha and Boya Ranga Nayudu vs Nil. | 06 Aug 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100002/2017 | J.Prabhakar Rao vs N.Ravi Prakash Reddy | 02 Aug 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100072/2012 | A.Prathap Reddy vs Spl.Deputy Collector | 02 Aug 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100090/2011 | Y.Chinna Shankar Reddy vs Spl.Deputy Collector | 02 Aug 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100183/2017 | K.Ramalingeswara Reddy vs B.Sivakanthamma | 01 Aug 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100239/2017 | J.Saraswathi vs S.Srinivasulu | 01 Aug 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| OS/199/2017 | Golla Chandra Sekhar Yadav vs Shamshad Begum and another | 31 Jul 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| OS/545/2015 | C. RAMU vs P. SUBBAMMA OTHER1 | 31 Jul 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/58/2018 | Sriram Madhulatha vs S.Suman | 31 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/67/2019 | M/S SHRIRAM CHITS PVT LTD vs S.VIJAYALAXMI | 30 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100025/2018 | Kotha Radha Mohan vs Mandla Siddhu | 30 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100332/2013 | K.Vijayamohan Reddy vs SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR L.A. | 30 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| SC/34/2019 | State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Kurnool IV Town PS vs Vadde Sreenivasulu | 30 Jul 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| EP/100061/2012 | Kuruva Nadipi Yellaiah and 4 others vs Spl.Deputy Collector H.n.S.S.Unit-IV | 29 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100070/2012 | K.Kanakala Sreedhar vs Deputy collector | 29 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100073/2012 | A.Rama Lakshma Reddy vs Special Deputy Collector,. | 29 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100074/2012 | A.Balarami Reddy vs Spl.Deputy Collector | 29 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100075/2012 | D.Rudrama Devi vs Special Deputy Collector,. | 29 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100076/2012 | K.K.Pedda Ganganna vs Special Deputy Collector,. | 29 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100079/2012 | K.Laxmamma vs Special Deputy Collector,. | 29 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100087/2012 | Kuruva Kanakala Achanna vs Spl.Deputy Collector | 29 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100088/2012 | Arepati Rama chnadra reddy and 4 others vs Special Deputy Collector,. | 29 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| IP/30/2018 | Mangali Sanjeeva Kumar vs Damodar Reddy and 22 others | 29 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| SCC/2/2019 | B.RAJU vs M.VENKATESWARLU | 29 Jul 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| OS/385/2017 | K.Chinna Venkataswamy vs M.A.Nabisa | 25 Jul 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| OS/465/2017 | Smt.Tata Radha vs Smt.Thurakapalli Rama Devi | 25 Jul 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| EP/100036/2015 | B.Eswaraiah vs S.K.Mahaboob Basha | 24 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| SC/16/2019 | State rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri P.S. vs Boya Balakrishna | 24 Jul 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| SC/42/2019 | State. Rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Jaladurgam P.S. vs Kasiboina Bhimesh | 24 Jul 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| EP/100181/2014 | S.Babu vs D.Babu | 23 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| S.O.P/24/2017 | Shakunthalamma and 2 others vs Nil. | 23 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/180/2016 | Uma Maheswara Enterprises vs M.Moshe | 22 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100196/2016 | Ms Shriram Chits Pvt.Ltd,Kurnool vs K.Seshi Reddy | 22 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| CC/4/2018 | Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandikotkur PS vs S.Shabana and 2 others | 22 Jul 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| H.M.O.P/9/2019 | P,Maruthi Reddy and another vs None | 22 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100333/2013 | K.Venkata Ranga Reddy vs SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR L.A. | 19 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100400/2014 | T.Chinna Narasaiah vs N.Madhusudhan Rao | 19 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100015/2016 | K.Murthujavali vs V.Sidheswara | 18 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100039/2014 | D.Suvarna Lakshmi vs Swethambar Murthy Pujak Jain Sangham Died by L.Rs | 18 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| EP/100194/2017 | T.Shafiullah vs S.M.Basha | 18 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
| OS/623/2013 | Ayyamma and 4 others vs M.Prabhakar | 18 Jul 2019 | Copy of Judgment | — |
| EP/100070/2018 | M.V.Sudhakar Reddy vs B.Sreenivasulu | 17 Jul 2019 | Copy of Order | — |
Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)
| Sep 2019 | 20 | |
| Aug 2019 | 47 | |
| Jul 2019 | 76 | |
| Jun 2019 | 12 | |
| May 2019 | 4 | |
| Apr 2019 | 41 | |
| Mar 2019 | 43 | |
| Feb 2019 | 44 | |
| Jan 2019 | 39 | |
| Dec 2018 | 103 | |
| Nov 2018 | 37 | |
| Oct 2018 | 56 |
Log in for full trend data.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Sri A.Moses handled?
Sri A.Moses has handled 1376 court orders since 2017 at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool. The average disposal rate is 55 orders per month.
What types of cases does Sri A.Moses hear?
Based on available records, Sri A.Moses primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, SCC) at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool.
Where is Sri A.Moses currently posted?
Sri A.Moses is posted as Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.
Are judgments by Sri A.Moses available online?
Yes. 26 judgments by Sri A.Moses are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does Sri A.Moses dispose cases?
Sri A.Moses disposes approximately 55 cases per month, based on 1376 orders handled over their tenure at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool.
Since when is Sri A.Moses serving?
Sri A.Moses has been serving at PDJ Court Complex, Kurnool since 2017.
Case Types
Posting History
-
May 2019 — Jun 2019Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool
-
May 2019 — Sep 2019Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool · 155 orders
-
Oct 2018 — Oct 2018Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool
-
Jul 2018 — Aug 2018Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool · 3 orders
-
Apr 2018 — Apr 2018SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADONI · 5 orders
-
Apr 2018 — Apr 2018Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool · 3 orders
-
Nov 2017 — May 2019Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool · 816 orders
-
Nov 2017 — Jan 2019Senior Civil Judge · 159 orders
-
Sep 2017 — Nov 2017Senior Civil Judge · 29 orders
-
May 2017 — Sep 2017Senior Civil Judge · 206 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court