Sri K.V.Vijaya Kumar, B.Com., L.L.M.,

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE.

Present: Sri K.V.VIJAYA KUMAR,

Principal District Judge, Ongole.

Friday, this the 26th day of August, 2016.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.379 OF 2014.

Between:

Katragadda Subba Rao, son of Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 68 years, Retired Employee, D.No.42-1-183, East Kammapalem, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. … PLAINTIFF

AND

1. The Special Collector (L.A.) National High Way No.5, R.D.O. Office Premises, Ongole Town, Prakasam District.

2. The Tahsildar, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. … DEFENDANTS

This suit is coming on 10.08.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.L.Govindaiah and Sri D.Koteswara Rao,

Advocates for the Plaintiff and the Government Pleader for

Defendants No.1 and 2, and upon hearing the Advocates on record and on perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

// J U D G M E N T //

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of the rights of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land and consequentially to direct the 1st defendant to pay compensation to the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property as per National Highways Act and Rules and to grant permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant to pay land compensation to the third parties and for costs.

2

2.The brief averments of the plaint can be noted as follows:-

(a)The plaintiff's father got the plaint schedule property under a registered settlement deed dt.04.04.1964. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. One Katragadda Kotaiah and others had questioned the right of the plaintiff's father in the plaint schedule property, then a suit is filed in O.S.No.09 of 1967 by the plaintiff's father against the said Kotaiah and others and ultimately the suit ended in compromise and consequently a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff's father granting permanent injunction showing the plaint schedule property as his property. The plaintiff's father had died on 23.09.1982. Since then the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property as the sole heir. The plaint schedule property is in an extent of Ac.0-20 cents in Sy.No.359/1B2, but the revenue authorities having recognized the right of the plaintiff had issued a Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed wrongly for an extent of Ac.0- 45 cents. However, the plaintiff is restricting his claim only to an extent of Ac.0-20 cents. The National Highways authorities have proposed to acquire the land in the suit survey number including the plaint schedule property. But surprisingly the defendant No.1 had declared in his Award that the plaintiff is having only Ac.0-05 cents in Sy.No.359/1B2 instead of

Ac.0-20 cents of land and awarded compensation only for Ac.0-05 cents.

The team of surveyors has measured the entire extent of Ac.49-39 cents in SY.No.359 and there is shortage of Ac.0-15 cents, but the authorities had illegally deducted the said extent from the land of the plaintiff instead of taking the shortage of land proportionately from all the owners in the land. Therefore, the surveyors team had shown only Ac.0- 05 cents of land in the name of the plaintiff. Immediately the plaintiff approached the 1st defendant and filed objections about his extent of land. As the 1st defendant could not grant any relief to the plaintiff, he 3 gave representation to the 2nd defendant to rectify the mistake. The plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants on various occasions and there was no proper reply given to the plaintiff nor they conducted resurvey. Subsequently the plaintiff being a physically handicapped person unable to approach the authorities. But when the defendants are trying to pay the compensation to the third parties even for the plaint schedule land of the plaintiff, he gave representation to the

Director of C.B.I., Hyderabad, District Collector, Prakasam District and the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District and to the Hon'ble

Lokayuktha, Hyderabad besides other authorities. The defendants have absolutely no right to acquire the land without paying compensation to the plaintiff. As the revenue records also revealed the extent of Ac.0-20 cents in the name of the plaintiff, he is entitled for the same. Therefore, he is constrained to file the suit for declaration and for recovery of compensation and for consequential injunction.

3.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the 1st defendant can be noted as follows :-

The 1st defendant had denied the allegations of the plaintiff in regard to his right over an extent of Ac.0-20 cents of land. Besides that it is contended that an extent of Ac.3-56 cents of land in Sy.No.359/3A and Ac.5-14 cents in S.No.359/1B2 of Koppolu village was proposed for acquisition for formation of Bye-pass road on the eastern side of Ongole

Town and notification also published in Central Gazette and as per the particulars furnished by the Tahsildar, Ongole the plaintiff Katragadda

Subbarao is losing an extent of Ac.0-05 cents of land in Sy.No.359/1B2 and Ac.0-01 ¾ cents in Sy.No.342/2A of Koppolu village. Basing on the enjoyment particulars furnished by the survey team award enquiry has completed. As per the Award enquiry Katragadda Subba Rao is having 4

Ac.0-45 cents of land in Sy.No.359/1B2 of Koppolu village, out of which an extent of Ac.0-05 cents is covered under acquisition and an amount of Rs.6,99,299/- is awarded in his favour. At this stage one Katragadda

Nagalakshmi and some others filed petitions for compensation and requested the authorities to stop the payments till the entire land in

Sy.No.359 is surveyed. When the 1st defendant had requested the

Tahsildar, Ongole to get the land measured in Sy.No.359/1B2 of Koppolu village, the lands were measured through a team of surveyors. As per the report of the Tahsildar the total extent of the land covered under the acquisition in Sy.No.359/1B2 is Ac.5-03 cents. As per the re-survey report submitted by the Tahsildar the plaintiff is losing an extent of Ac.0- 05 cents under the acquisition in Sy.No.359/1B2 of Koppolu village. At this stage the plaintiff filed the present suit claiming that he has got

Ac.0-20 cents of land. All other land owners had requested defendant

No.1 to grant compensation to them by reducing Ac.0-15 cents covered by the suit from their individual extents and expressed their willingness to take the compensation accordingly. Accordingly, the competent authority issued revised proceedings for payment of land acquisition to the land owners. As per the extents shown in the revised report compensation also was paid to the owners. Subsequent to issuance of the cheques, Katragada Narasimha Rao filed a suit in O.S.No.207/2012 on the file fo District Court, Ongole, for an extent of Ac.1-50 cents and one Katragadda Naga Lakshmi also filed a suit in O.S.No.213/2013 on the file of Junior Civil Judge's Court, Ongole against the Special Collector (LA), N.H.-5, Ongole. The plaintiff had filed even a complaint before the

Hon'ble Lokayuktha, Hyderabad. In view of all the civil suits and a

complaint in Hon'ble Lokayuktha, the land compensation cheques were not distributed to the land owners. A Writ petition was filed before the

Hon'ble High Court seeking direction to the competent authority for

5 release of the compensation cheques. An order was passed by the

Hon'ble High Court to pay the compensation amount to the owners so

long as no injunction order was passed in payment of compensation, but however the petitioner shall give an undertaking before the Land

Acquisition Officer that the payment of compensation amount will abide by the result in this write petition. On 18.11.2013 the plaintiff gave a representation stating that though he is losing Ac.0-20 cents of land, he was awarded compensation only for Ac.0-05 cents and finally he requested to pay the compensation to him. Accordingly compensation was awarded to the petitioner for Ac.0-05 cents. But subsequently

Katragadda Subba Rao and other land owners gave a petition stating that the plaintiff has no land in Sy.No.359/1B2 of Koppolu village, but by suppressing all these facts. The plaintiff had filed the present suit with false allegations. All the parties who had raised objections to the claim of the plaintiff are necessary parties to the suit. This defendant therefore, prays for dismissal of the suit.

4.The brief averments of the written statement filed by 2nd defendant, can be noted as follows :-

As per the Resurvey and Settlement Register of Koppolu village the land measuring an extent of Ac.37.80 cents in S.No.359/1B is classified as Patta Land. The plaintiff is having an extent of Ac.0-05 cents in Sy.No.359/1B of Koppolu village. As could be seen from the 1-B

Register of Koppolu village the plaintiff was granted Patta to an extent of

Ac.0-05 cents but it is not known as to how Ac.0-45 is noted in the

Pattadar Passbook. When the land was proposed to acquired and compensation to be awarded, one Katragadda Naga Lakshmi had given a petition requesting the authorities to stop the payment of land compensation to all the land owners. Later the Mandal Surveyor, 6

Ongole had survyed the lands covered in S.No.359/1B2 and 359/3A of

Koppolu village and submitted his report and as per the survey it was sub-divided as Ac.0-22 cents in S.No.359/1B2a, Ac.0-98 cents in

S.No.359/1B2b, Ac.0-84 cents in S.No.359/1B2c, Ac.0-68 cents in

S.No.359/1B2d, Ac.2-29 cents in S.No.359/2c and Ac.3-64 cents in

S.No.359/3A. Even as per the resurvey the plaintiff is found in possession of Ac.0-05 cents of land. There is a difficult to identify the land to an extent of Ac.0-06 ½ cents in S.No.359/1B2a to note under whose possession it is there. As per the survey and the resurvey the plaintiff is found having only Ac.0-05 cents of land in the above said survey number and is in possession of the same. This defendant, therefore, prays for dismissal of the same.

5. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are settled for trial :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation as prayed for ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?

4. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ?

6.During the course of trial, the plaintiff has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 on his behalf and marked as Exs.A1 to A25 documents. The defendants did not adduce any evidence and have not marked any documents on their behalf.

7. Issue Nos.1 to 3 :-

(a)The counsel for the plaintiff had very stoutly contended that the

National Highway authorities while acquiring the land in suit survey 7

No.359 had acquired the land of the plaintiff also, but had wrongly shown the extent of Ac.0-05 cents instead of Ac.0-20 cents. He further argued that even the revenue authorities having recognized the right of the plaintiff over an extent of Ac.0-20 cents had wrongly given the particulars to the National Highway authorities for acquiring only Ac.0- 05 cents of land of the plaintiff, therefore, the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for declaration as he has got absolute right over an extent of

Ac.0-20 cents as it is born out even by the record.

(b)The learned Government Pleader while appearing for the defendants had argued that there were many objections raised by the third parties even in regard to the claim of the plaintiff over the suit survey number and as per the survey conducted at that time, only Ac.0- 05 cents of land of the plaintiff was acquired, therefore, compensation was paid only for the Ac.0-05 cents of land.

(c)The learned Government Pleader, however, had not very much disputed the right of the plaintiff over an extent of Ac.0-20 cents of land by virtue of the settlement deed and also by virtue of the suit filed by the father of the plaintiff in O.S.No.09 of 1967 and subsequent revenue records.

(d)To make the things more clear, it is necessary to refer to the documents filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's father is claiming to have got an extent of Ac.0-20 cents of land in the suit survey number under a registered settlement deed as long back as in the year 1964. Ex.A1 is the Registered Settlement Deed dt.04.04.1964. Though the plaintiff had claimed to have obtained the decree in O.S.No.09 of 1967 against one

Katragadda Kotaiah, which ended in compromise and also a decree in 8 favour of plaintiff's father, the said document is not filed in the Court.

But even as per the evidence of P.W.1 the right of the plaintiff's father was established in that suit and injunction also was granted in his favour. This particular claim of the plaintiff is not very much disputed.

Further the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 also are clearly supporting the claim of the plaintiff. It is important to note that P.W.2 is the eastern side owner of the plaintiff's suit land. Therefore, P.W.2 is qualified to speak about the right and possession of the plaintiff over an extent of

Ac.0-20 cents of land. P.W.3 has also deposed that the plaintiff is enjoying the suit schedule property. P.W.3 is contending that his wife has got an extent of Ac.0-78 cents of land at a distance of 100 yards from the suit schedule property. Therefore, he has got knowledge about the plaintiff's enjoyment. In item No.6 of Ex.A1 settlement deed it is clearly mentioned that an extent of Ac.0-20 cents in Sy.No.359 out of the total extent of Ac.49-39 cents was given to the plaintiff's father. As per the boundaries noted therein Pendyala Subbaiah was shown as the eastern side owner. The said Pendyala Subbaiah is none other than the father of P.W.2. Therefore, under this registered document it is clearly shown that the plaintiff had got Ac.0-20 cents of land in Sy.No.359.

(e)Exs.A3 and A4 are the Title Deed and Pattadar Passbook issued by the Tahsildar, Ongole, under which an extent of Ac.0-45 cents of land is shown in the name of plaintiff in Sy.No.359/1B. It is pertinent to note at this juncture that the plaintiff had clearly contended that he claimed only Ac.0-20 cents of land and he is confining his right only for an extent of Ac.0-20 cents of land in the suit survey number and there is a mistake in regard to the extent mentioned in Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed as it is showing Ac.0-45 cents of land insetad of Ac.0-20 cents. Even the

Adangal copy under Ex.A5, 1-B Register under Ex.A6 and 1-A register 9 under Ex.A7, are also showing an extent of Ac.0-45 cents in the name of the plaintiff in Sy.No.359/1B. The defendants are not disputing the

Pattadar Passbook and Title Deed issued to the plaintiff. Therefore, it can be clearly said that the plaintiff has certainly got an extent of Ac.0- 20 cents of land as claimed by him, though an extent of Ac.0-45 cents of land in the suit survey number in the name of the plaintiff.

(f)The defendants are contending that as per survey an extent of

Ac.0-05 cents was found in possession of the plaintiff only, therefore, they have granted compensation only for Ac.0-05 cents of land in the suit survey number under Ex.A8. At this point of time it is very important to note that the defendants in their written statement filed on behalf of defendant No.2 had clearly mentioned as follows :-

“There is a difficulty to identify the land to an extent of

Ac.0-06 ½ cents in Survey No.359/1B2a is under

possession of whom and it has to be identified.”

It is clear even from this averment mentioned in the written statement of defendant No.2 in Para No.8 while furnishing the particulars of the extents noted in the survey report. The revenue authorities themselves have found that still an extent of Ac.0-06 ½ cents of land which was acquired by the National Highway authorities is left unidentified.

(g)What is pertinent to note about the present suit is that, the land of the plaintiff is not situated in one corner, thereby the defendants could come and say that they have acquired only Ac.0-05 cents of land and the remaining extent of land is left over. The land of the plaintiff is situated in the middle portion and there are other lands surrounded by, acquired by the national highway authorities. Under such circumstances, if the plaintiff has got Ac.0-20 cents of land in that 10 survey number, the possibility of acquiring only Ac.0-05 cents of land of the plaintiff cannot be accepted to be true. Defendant No.1 in his written statement in Para No.7 had mentioned as follows :-

“In view of the suit pending in this Hon'ble Court all the

other land owners whose lands were covered under

acquisition in S.No.359/1B2 of Koppolu village have

requested the Competent Authority & Special Collector

(LA), N.H-5, Ongole/ 1 st defendant to pay land

compensation in their favour reducing Ac.0-15 cents

covered by suit from their individual extents and willing

to take compensation accordingly.”

It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that while surveying the land for the acquisition, an extent of Ac.0-15 cents was found in deficit, but the entire deficit extent was reduced from the land of the plaintiff only, thereby compensation was passed for an extent of Ac.0-05 cents for the plaintiff. But here it is important to note that even the other land owners whose lands were acquired by the National Highway authorities had also come forward to contend that they are prepared to claim compensation by reducing Ac.0-15 cents of land in the total extent.

These all circumstances as explained above are clearly showing that the plaintiff's right in an extent of Ac.0-20 cents of land in the suit survey number can clearly be understood and to be true and correct. There is no contra evidence produced by the defendants to dispute the claim of the plaintiff for an extent of Ac.0-20 cents of land in the suit survey number. Even during the course of arguments the learned Government

Pleader has not very much disputed about the right of the plaintiff for an extent of Ac.0-20 cents of land as it is shown even in the records maintained by the revenue authorities.

11

(h)The plaintiff has issued many legal notices to the defendants to survey the land by considering the documents submitted by him and particularly the settlement deed and also the revenue records maintained by the revenue authorities. The request of the plaintiff was not very much considered and the survey was not conducted as per the documents available on record.

(i)But by considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and also by considering the documents under Exs.A1 to A7 it can be said that the plaintiff's contention that he has got Ac.0-20 cents of land in the suit survey number and the same was acquired by defendant No.1 cannot be disputed. Even if there is semblance of doubt that could be expressed by the defendants to say that the settlement deed is of 1964 and subsequently it could have been conveyed to many others and that doubt also is dispelled by the encumbrance certificate obtained by the plaintiff under Ex.A20.

(j)Finally it is important to note that the plaintiff had obtained the certified copy of the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.09 of 1967 from the file of the District Munsiff, Ongole under Ex.A23, which also clearly reveals the right of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property.

(k)By considering all these circumstances, this Court has no hesitation to say that the plaintiff has got right in the suit schedule property for an extent of Ac.0-20 cents of land in the suit survey

No.359/1B2. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered holding that the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his right over an extent of Ac.0-20 cents of land in the suit survey number. I further hold that the defendants has to pay compensation as per the right of the plaintiff over an extent of Ac.0-20 cents of land instead of granting compensation only for an extent of Ac.0-05 cents of land. Accordingly, issue No.2 is 12 answered. This Court further holds that the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction only in respect of the plaint schedule property within the compensation awarded. Accordingly, issue No.3 is answered.

8. Issue No.4 :- To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and the 1st defendant is directed to pay compensation to the plaintiff over the plaint schedule land as per the National Highways Act and Rules; and also granted permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant in paying compensation in respect of the plaintiff's plaint schedule land to the third parties.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 26th day of August, 2016.

Sd/- K.V.Vijaya Kumar.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff :- For Defendants :- P.W.1 : Katragadda Subba Rao- None - P.W.2 : Pendyala Ranga Rao P.W.3 : Singamaneni Venkateswarlu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :- Ex.A1:The Regd. Settlement Deed dt. 04.04.1964 in favour of the father of the plaintiff.

Ex.A2:Non Availability of date of birth of father of the plaintiff for which a certificate was issued by Ongole Municipality, dt. 17.05.2005

Ex.A3:The Title Deed issued by the Tahsildar, Ongole in the year 1996.

Ex.A4:The Pass Book issued by the Tahsildar, Ongole in the year 1996.

Ex.A5:The Adangal copy dt.26.04.2013 for 1422 Fasali issued by the Tahsildar, Ongole Mandal.

Ex.A6:The True copy of extract of the 1B Register issued by the Tahsildar, Ongole Mandal, on the name of the plaintiff for the plaint schedule dt.26.04.2013.

Ex.A7:The True copy of extract of 1A Register for S.NO.359/1B issued by the Tahsildar, Ongole Mandal dt. 26.04.2013.

13

Ex.A8:The Certified copy of the award of Koppolu Village prepared by the 1st defendant (1st petitioner’s land is shown in Page No.16 of the award as 202.34 sq.mts.)

Ex.A9:Office copy of the legal notice dt. 26.03.2013

Ex.A10:Acknowledgement for the legal notice dt.26.03.2013 received by the 1st defendant.

Ex.A11:Acknowledgment for the legal notice dt. 26.03.2013 received by the 2nd defendant.

Ex.A12:Office copy of the 2nd legal notice dt.15.04.2013 to the 1st defendant.

Ex.A13:Office copy of the 2nd legal notice dt.15.04.2013 to the 2nd defendant.

Ex.A14:Acknowledgment for the legal notice dt.15.04.2013 received by the 1st defendant.

Ex.A15:Acknowledgment for the legal notice dt.15.04.2013 received by the 2nd defendant.

Ex.A16:Office copy of the representation and postal receipts dt.16.04.2013.

Ex.A17:Acknowledgment dt.17.04.2013 of Tahsildar, Ongole Mandal for the representation dt.16.04.2013.

Ex.A18:Office copy of the representation dt.20.04.2013 issued to the 1st defendant along with postal receipt

Ex.A19:Postal Acknowledgment dt.22.04.2013 of the 1st defendant for the representation of plaintiff dt.20.04.2013

Ex.A20:Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Sub Registrar, Ongole dt.25.03.2013.

Ex.A21:Award copy dt.20.04.2012 served to the plaintiff under the activities

Ex.A22:Gazettee Notification dt.20.07.2011

Ex.A23:Certified copy of Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.9/1967 on the file of Hon'ble District Munisif, Ongole dt.03.08.1968.

Ex.A24:True copy of Land Acquisition Letter No. Rc.A/221/2013, dt.04.05.2013

Ex.A25:Served copy of the order in Letter Rc./LA/NH5/new bye- pass/50/2010, dt.29.05.2013 passed by the Spl. Deputy Collector (LA).

For Defendants :- -NIL-

Sd/- K.V.Vijaya Kumar.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PRAKASAM AT

ONGOLE.

Present: Sri K.V.VIJAYA KUMAR,

Principal District Judge, Ongole.

Friday, this the 26th day of August, 2016.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.379 OF 2014.

Between:

Katragadda Subba Rao, son of Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 68 years, Retired Employee, D.No.42-1-183, East Kammapalem, Ongole Town, Prakasam District. … PLAINTIFF

AND

1. The Special Collector (L.A.) National High Way No.5, R.D.O. Office Premises, Ongole Town, Prakasam District.

2. The Tahsildar, Ongole Mandal, Prakasam District. … DEFENDANTS

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his rights over the plaint schedule land and consequentially to direct the 1st defendant to pay compensation to the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property as per National Highways Act and Rules and to grant permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant to pay land compensation to the third parties and for costs.

Plaint presented on 20.05.2013 (vacation Court Ongole), and Filed on : 17.11.2014 (PDJC, Ongole)

Cause of action for the suit arose when the father of the plaintiff acquired the plaint schedule land under a registered settlement deed dt.04.04.1964 and when the father of the plaintiff obtained injunction for the schedule land in O.S.No.09/1967, later when the plaintiff's father died in the year 1982 leaving behind the plaintiff as his sole legal heir and since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land, confirming the right and possession, the revenue authorities also issued pattadar passbook, title deed to the plaintiff for the schedule land in the year 1996, when the national highway authorities proposed for acquisition of the plaint schedule land for bypass road, Ongole and when the 1st defendant passed award by showing the plaint schedule land as 202.34 sq. meters instead of 809.4 sq. meters, and when the 1st defendant prepared the cheques to pay the compensation to the 3rd parties accordingly for the plaint schedule land without conducting enquiry, on that the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants on 15.04.2013, and at Koppolu village of Ongole Mandal, whithin the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

Valuation and Court Fee :- This being a suit filed for declaration and consequential direction to pay compensation to the plaintiff and also for permanent injunction, the suit is valued as follows:-

Market value of the plaint schedule property isRs.19,36,000-00

During pendency of the suit the 1st defendant deposited compensation amount of Rs.27,97,196/- as per the award passed by the Spl. Collector, Land Acquisition, Ongole. Therefore, the actual value of the suit claim is Rs.27,97,196-00

Half of the value of the above said amount isRs.13,98,598-00

On which a Court fee of Rs.16,426/- is paid under Sec.24 (b) of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

The relief of Permanent Injunction is valued at Rs.20,000/-, on which a Court fee of Rs.1,386/- is paid u/s.26 (c) of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

Total Jurisdictional value of the suit is Rs.14,18,598/- (Rs.13,98,598/- + Rs.20,000/-)

Total Court Fee paid payable is Rs.17,812/-

A Court fee of Rs.13,512/- was deposited into the C.F. Account of Prl. Senior Civil Judge's Court, Ongole and a Court fee of Rs.4,400/- is paid into the C.F. Account of District Judge, Ongole. In total Court fee of Rs.17,912/- is paid. (Excess of Rs.100/- is paid).

This suit is coming on 10.08.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.L.Govindaiah and Sri D.Koteswara Rao, Advocates for the Plaintiff and the Government Pleader for Defendants No.1 and 2, and upon hearing the Advocates on record and on perusing the material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court DOTH ORDER AND DECREE :-

(a) That the suit be and the same is hereby DECREED, and;

(b)That the Plaintiff be and he is hereby declared as the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, and;

(c)That the 1st defendant be and is hereby directed to pay compensation in respect of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff as per the National Highways Act and Rules, and;

(d)That the 1st defendant be and is hereby directed not to pay the compensation amount in respect of plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff to any third parties, by granting permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff.

(c)That the defendant No.1 do pay to the plaintiff, a sum of

Rs.1,00,738/- (Rupees Rupees One lakh seven hundred and thirty eight only) towards costs of this suit bearing their own costs of this suit.

(plaint schedule is herewith attached)

Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 26th day of August, 2016.

Sd/- K.V.Vijaya Kumar.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE

TABLE OF COSTS

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

Stamps on vakalat Rs. 2-00 stamps on suitRs. 16,526-00 (as claimed) – Nil – stamps on process Rs. 100-00 (CM & FC not filed) C.F. affixed on documents Rs. 10-00 Advocate fee Rs. 84,000-00 Writing charges Rs. 100-00

--------------------- ----------------

TOTAL Rs.1,00738-00 Nil --------------------- –---------------

Sd/- K.V.Vijaya Kumar.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

ONGOLE

Note:- The parties should apply as soon as possible for return of all Exhibits which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after the stipulated period from this date (Rule 9 of Rules Under the Destruction of records Act 1917).

1

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS :: PRAKASAM DIVISION : ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole)

PRESENT: SRI K.V.VIJAYA KUMAR,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Monday, this the 16 th day of May, 2016.

TR.CRL.M.P.No .27 of 2016

Between:

Nusum Rama Krishna Reddy @ Krishna Reddy, son of Venkata Subba Reddy, aged 52 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Resident of Sankavarappadu village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District. … PETITIONER

And

1. Pothireddy Srinivasa Reddy, son of Venkateswara Reddy, aged 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Resident of Sankavarappadu (V), Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District.

5. The State : Station House Officer, Addanki P.S. Represented by Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … RESPONDENT

This Transfer Crl.M.P. coming on 10.05.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Y.Ramesh, Advocate for the petitioner, and of Sri D.Srinivasulu Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and the Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.2, upon hearing the Advocates on record, upon perusal of the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following: -

// O R D E R //

1.This transfer Crl. Misc. Petition is filed under Section 408 of Cr.P.C.

praying for transfer of C.C.No.476 of 2015 pending on the file of Addl.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Addanki to the file of Assistant

Sessions Judge's Court, Addanki, to be tried along with S.C.No.157 of

2015.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

The petitioner is shown as accused in Sessions Case No.157 of 2015 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Addanki. The 1st

2

respondent is shown as accused in C.C.No.476 of 2015 pending on the file of the Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Addanki. The 2nd respondent is the complainant in both the cases. The witnesses No.4 and 5 in S.C.No.157 of 2015 and the witnesses No.3 and 4 in C.C.No.476 of 2015 are one and the same. The alleged incident occurred in both the cases due to altercation between the parties in the fields regarding canal water and both the parties sustained injuries. Both the cases are case and counter cases, as the date, time, place of offences are the same and as the parties are also the same. Therefore, both matters may be tried at one place. Therefore, the petitioner prays for transferring of

C.C.No.476 of 2015 from the file of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class

Court, Addanki to the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Addanki to try it along with S.C.No.157/2015.

3.The brief averments of the counter filed by the 1st respondent can be noted as follows :-

The petition is filed only to protract the matter in S.C. No.157 of 2015 with a malafide intention to harass the 1st respondent. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4.The brief averments of the counter filed by 2nd respondent are as follows :-

The calendar case No.476 of 2015 and the Sessions Case No.157 of 2015 are case and counter cases and it is justifiable to try both the matters in one Court to avoid conflicting of decisions.

5.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether C.C.No.476 of 2015 from the file of Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of First Class, Addanki can be transferred to

the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Addanki to be

tried along with S.C.No.157 of 2015 ?

3

6.Point:-

(a)It is clearly brought on record that the case in C.C. No.476 of 2015 on the file of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Addanki and the case in S.C.No.157 of 2015 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's

Court, Addanki are case and counter cases. In one case the petitioner is the complainant and in the other case the respondent No.1 is the complainant. The place, the incident and time of offence are common in both the cases. Therefore, it is not in dispute that both the cases are case and counter cases. In view of these circumstances, it is justifiable to try both the matters in one Court to avoid conflicting of decisions.

Therefore, the case in C.C. NO.476 of 2015 is ordered to be transferred to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Addanki, to be tried it along with S.C.No.157 of 2015. Accordingly, the point is answered.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed and the C.C.No.476 of 2015 is withdrawn from the file of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Addanki and the same is transferred to the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge's

Court, Addanki, to try it along with S.C.No.157 of 2015.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16th day of May, 2016.

Sd/- K.V.Vijaya Kumar.

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

Copy to 1.The Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Addanki. 2.The Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Addanki.

1

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS :: PRAKASAM DIVISION : ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole)

PRESENT: SRI K.V.VIJAYA KUMAR,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Monday, this the 16 th day of May, 2016.

TR.CRL.M.P.No .30 of 2016

Between:

1. Thota Butchaiah @ Bikshalu, S/o. Nageswara Rao, aged 27 years, Yadava by caste, R/o. Devinuthala Village, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Thota Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Nageswara Rao, aged 35 years, Yadava by caste, R/o. Devinuthala Village, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Gonaboina Yedukondalu, S/o. Krishna Murthy, aged 36 years, Yadava by caste, R/o. Devinuthala Village, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Vallu Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu @ Bangari, aged 40 years, Yadava by caste, R/o. Devinuthala Village, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

…Petitioners AND

1. Burla Naga Raju, S/o. Venkateswarlu, 35 years, Yadava by Caste, R/o. Devinuthala Village, Chirala Mandal.

2. Burla Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged 32 years, Yadava by Caste, R/o. Devinuthala Village, Chirala Mandal.

3. Gavini Venkateswarlu, S/o. Lakshmaiah, aged 40 years, Yadava by Caste, R/o. Devinuthala Village, Chirala Mandal.

4. Gavini Lakshmaiah, S/o. Venkateswarlu, aged 65 years, Yadava by Caste, R/o. Devinuthala Village, Chirala Mandal.

5. The State, S.H.O., Chirala Rural Police Station, Rep.by Public Prosecutor, Dist. & Sessions Court, Ongole.

…Respondents

This Transfer Crl.M.P. coming on 16.05.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the petitioner, and that the respondents No.1 to 4 having remained exparte and of learned Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.5, upon hearing the Advocates on record, upon perusal of the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following: -

2

// O R D E R //

1.This transfer Crl. Misc. Petition is filed under Section 408 of Cr.P.C.

praying for transfer of C.C.No.182 of 2015 pending on the file of Addl.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Chirala to the file of Assistant

Sessions Judge's Court, Chirala, to be tried along with S.C.No.115 of

2015.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

The petitioners are accused in Sessions Case No.115 of 2015 pending on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chirala. The defacto complainant in that case is the accused in C.C.No.182 of 2015 pending on the file of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Chirala.

The date, time and place of offence in both the cases are one and the same. Therefore, in fact, they are case and counter cases. In view of this situation to avoid any conflicting decisions, it is just and necessary both the cases can be tried in one Court. The petitioner, therefore, prays for transferring of C.C.No.182 of 2015 from the file of Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of First Class Court, Chirala to the file of Assistant Sessions

Judge's Court, Chirala to try it along with S.C.No.115 of 2015.

3.The respondents No.1 to 4 were served with notices, by they remained exparte. Respondent No.5 did not file any counter.

5.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether C.C.No.182 of 2015 from the file of Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of First Class, Chirala can be transferred to the

file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chirala to be tried

along with S.C.No.115 of 2015 ?

3

6.Point:-

(a)It is clearly brought on record that the case in C.C. No.182 of 2015 on the file of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Chirala, in which the petitioner No.1 is the complainant and the case in S.C.No.115 of 2015 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chirala, in which the petitioners are the accused, are arising out of the same incident. As per the contention of the petitioners as it is case and counter cases and basing on the offences mentioned therein the cases were filed in different Courts. Therefore, it is just and necessary if both the cases are tried in one Court, conflicting decisions can be avoided and a justifiable decision can be arrived. Therefore, the case in C.C.No.182 of 2015 on the file of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Chirala, can be transferred to the file of Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chirala to try it along with S.C. No.115 of 2015. Accordingly, the point is answered.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed and the C.C.No.182 of 2015 is withdrawn from the file of Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chirala and the same is transferred to the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge's

Court, Chirala, to try it along with S.C.No.115 of 2015.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16th day of May, 2016.

Sd/- K.V.Vijaya Kumar.

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

Copy to 1.The Assistant Sessions Judge's Court, Chirala. 2.The Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Chirala.

1

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS :: PRAKASAM DIVISION : ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole)

PRESENT: SRI K.V.VIJAYA KUMAR,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole.

Monday, this the 16 th day of May, 2016.

TR.CRL.M.P.No .07 of 2016

Between:

1. Shaik Jani, S/o. Gouse, 20 years, Muslim, Mason Works, R/o. Yeruvavaripalli Village, Kanigiri Mandal.

2. Shaik Masthanbee, W/o. Gouse, 50 years, Muslim, House Wife, R/o. Yeruvavaripalli Village, Kanigiri Mandal.

3. Sayed Rajiya, W/o. Nayab Rasool @ Rasool, aged 25 years, Caste by Muslim, R/o. Yeruvavaripalli Village, Kanigiri Mandal.

4. Shaik Sharif, S/o. Gouse, aged 22 years, Muslim, Mason works, R/o. Yeruvavaripalli Village, Kanigiri Mandal.

…Petitioners AND

1. Dibbamadugu Guru Swamy, S/o. Guntaiah, aged 42 years, caste by Yadava, Cooly Works at Vijayawada, N/o. Yeruvavaripalli Village, Kanigiri Mandal.

2. Dibbamadugu Basla Guravamma, W/o. Guru Swamy, aged 40 years, Caste by Yadava, Cultivation, Yeruvavaripalli Village of Kanigiri Mandal.

3. Kuncha Rathamma @ Venkata Rathamma, W/o. Guru Murthy, aged 26 years, Caste by Yadava, Yeruvavaripalli Village, Kanigiri Mandal.

4. Kuncha Yogamma, W/o. Guravaiah, aged 54 years, Caste by Yadava, Yeruvavaripalli Village, Kanigiri Mandal.

5. The State, S.H.O., Kanigiri Police Station, Rep.by Public Prosecutor, Ongole. …Respondents

This Transfer Crl.M.P. coming on 16.05.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri I.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for the petitioner, and that the respondents No.1 to 4 having remained exparte and of learned Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.5, upon hearing the

Advocates on record, upon perusal of the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following: -

2

// O R D E R //

1.This transfer Crl. Misc. Petition is filed under Section 408 of Cr.P.C.

praying for transfer of C.C.No.163 of 2015 pending on the file of Judl.

Magistrate of First Class Court, Kanigiri to the file of I-Additional Sessions

Judge's Court, Ongole to be tried along with S.C.No.99 of 2015.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

The petitioners are accused No.1 to 4 in Sessions Case No.99 of 2015 pending on the file of I-Additional Sessions Judge's Court, Ongole, whereas the respondents No.1 to 4 are accused No.1 to 4 in C.C.No.163 of 2015 pending on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court,

Kanigiri. In fact, the incident in both the cases and the place of incident and the time of incident are common. The case in C.C.No.163 of 2015 is registered basing on the crime No.63 of 2015 under Sec.324 of IPC, whereas the Sessions Case No.99 of 2015 is registered basing on the crime No.62 of 2015 under Sec.323, 324, 326, 354(d) of IPC and Sec.8 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Both the cases are case and counter cases. If both the cases are tried in one Court, conflicting decisions can be avoided and justifiable orders can be passed. The petitioners, therefore, pray for transferring of C.C.No.163 of 2015 from the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Kanigiri to the file of I-Additional Sessions Judge's Court, Ongole to try it along with

S.C.No.99 of 2015.

3.Notices were served on the respondents No.1 to 4, but they remained exparte. Respondent No.5 did not file any counter.

3

4.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether C.C.No.163 of 2015 from the file of Judl.

Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri can be transferred to the

file of I-Additional Sessions Judge's Court, Ongole, to be

tried along with S.C.No.99 of 2015 ?

5.Point:-

On careful perusal of the record, it is noted that the case in

C.C.No.163 of 2015 is pending on the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class

Court, Kanigiri, whereas S.C.No.99 of 2015 is pending on the file of I-

Addl. Sessions Judge's Court, Ongole. It is brought on record that both the cases are arising out of the same transaction against both parties.

Therefore, if both cases are tried at one place conflicting decisions can be avoided. Therefore, it is just and necessary that the case in

C.C.No.163 of 2015 can be ordered to be tried along with S.C. No.99 of 215 on the file of I-Additional Sessions Judge's Court, Ongole.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

6.In the result, the petition is allowed and the C.C.No.163 of 2015 is withdrawn from the file of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kanigiri and the same is transferred to the file of the I-Additional Sessions Judge's Court,

Ongole, to try it along with S.C.No.99 of 2015.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16th day of May, 2016.

Sd/- K.V.Vijaya Kumar.

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ONGOLE. Copy to 1.The I-Additional Sessions Judge's Court, Ongole. 2.The Judl. Magistrate of First Class Court, Kanigiri.

1

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS :: PRAKASAM DIVISION : ONGOLE

(Before the Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole)

PRESENT: Smt M.G.Priyadarshini,

Principal Sessions Judge, Ongole.

This the 16th day of May, 2016.

Crl.M.P.No.31 of 2016

Between:

1) Thota Butchaiah alias Bikshalu Address - Ro Devinuthala village, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

2) Thota Sambasiva Rao Ro Devinuthala village, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

3) Gonaboina Yedukondalu Ro Devinuthala village, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

4) Vallu Srinivasa Rao Ro Devinuthala village, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District.

… Petitioner

AND

1) Burla Nagaraju Address - Ro Devinuthala village, Chirala Mandal.

2) Burla Sambasiva Rao Ro Devinuthala village, Chirala Mandal.

3) Gavini Venkateswarlu Ro Devinuthala village, Chirala Mandal.

4) Gavini Lakshmaiah Ro Devinuthala village, Chirala Mandal.

5) S.H.O Chirala Rural PS rep by Public Prosecutor, District and sessions court, Ongole Chirala.

… Respondents

This petition coming on today for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Nageswara Rao, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for Respondent and upon hearing the Advocates on record, on perusal of the entire material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following: -

// DOCKET O R D E R //

Since the main Crl.M.P. is disposed of, this petition becomes infructuous, hence dismissed as infructuous.

Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 16th day of May, 2016.

2

Sd/-M.G.Priyadarshini

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

ONGOLE.