Sri Kumar Vivek

PSCJ, CTR1L.A.O.P. No.54/2003

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present :-Sri KUMAR VIVEK,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Monday, this the 31st day of December, 2018

L.A.O.P No. 54 of 2003

(Award No. 19/2002 – 2003, dt.21.04.2003 of the Land Acquisition Officer – cum - Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor)

BETWEEN:-

The Land Acquisition Officer – cum - Revenue Divisional Officer Chittoor.

... Petitioner / Referring Officer

AND:-

1. J. Gurumoorthy Reddy, S/o Sidda Reddy, residing at Mattapalle village, H/o Pullur, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District.

2. K. Sreeramulu Reddy, S/o Govinda Reddy, residing at Mattapalle village, H/o Pullur, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District.

3. K. Malleswar Reddi, S/o Govindas Reddy, residing at Mattapalle village, H/o Pullur, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District.

4. K. Bhaskar Reddi, S/o Munuswamy Reddy, residing at Mattapalle village, H/o Pullur, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District.

5. K. Mahendra Reddi, S/o Munuswamy Reddi, residing at Mattapalle village, H/o Pullur, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District.

... Respondents / Claimants.

This original petition is coming on before me for final hearing on 07-09-2018, and upon perusing the petition, copy of Award in Award No.

19/2002-2003 dated 21-04-2003 and other material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M. Chandra Sekhar, learned

Government Pleader for the petitioner / Referring Officer and Sri K. Uday

Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents / Claimants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is a reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue

Divisional Officer, Chittoor under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that advance possession of Ac. 9.04 cents of land in survey numbers 236/2, 238/1 and 240/2 of Kollapalle village, Irala Mandal, Chittoor

District were taken over on 09/10/1985, and after holding due enquiry an

PSCJ, CTR2L.A.O.P. No.54/2003 award was passed on 29-08-2002 awarding market value @ 29,000/- per acre by taking into consideration the sale values of similar lands in the neighborhood of the acquired lands, and additional market value and interest were allowed from the date of publication of draft notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the compensation awarded were received by the claimants on 04-10-2002 under protest on representation for referring the matter under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stating that the market value of the acquired lands is about Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre without producing any evidence in support of their claim.

2.There are 5 claimants and they have filed separate claim statements. The 1st claimant has filed claim statement pleading that he had handed over Ac. 1.07 cent of land on 09-10-1985 to the Executive Engineer,

Minor Irrigation Department, Madanapalle for formation of new tank across

Gandodu vanka near Chinnavenkatampalle village, Kollapalle Revenue village Accounts, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District. The 2nd claimant has pleaded that he had handed over Ac. 3.33 cents of land on 09-10-1985 to the

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Madanapalle for formation of new tank across Gandodu vanka near Chinnavenkatampalle village,

Kollapalle Revenue Accounts, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District and notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the

District Collector, Chittoor only in respect of Ac. 2.22 ½ cents instead of Ac.

3.33 cents. The 3rd claimant has pleaded that he had handed over Ac. 3.33 cents of land on 09-10-1985 to the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation

Department, Madanapalle for formation of new tank across Gandodu vanka near Chinnavenkatampalle village, Kollapalle Revenue Accounts, Irala

Mandal, Chittoor District and notification under section 4 (1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the District Collector, Chittoor only in respect of Ac. 2.22 ½ cents instead of Ac. 3.33 cents. The 4th claimant has

PSCJ, CTR3L.A.O.P. No.54/2003 pleaded that he had handed over Ac. 2.76 ½ cents of land on 09-10-1985 to the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Madanapalle for formation of new tank across Gandodu vanka near Chinnavenkatampalle village, Kollapalle Revenue Accounts, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District and notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the District Collector, Chittoor only in respect of Ac. 1.76 cents instead of

Ac. 2.76 ½ cents. The 5th claimant has pleaded that he had handed over

Ac. 2.76 ½ cents of land on 09-10-1985 to the Executive Engineer, Minor

Irrigation Department, Madanapalle for formation of new tank across

Gandodu vanka near Chinnavenkatampalle village, Kollapalle Revenue

Accounts, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District and notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the District Collector, Chittoor only in respect of Ac. 1.76 cents instead of Ac. 2.76 ½ cents. The common averments of the claim statements of the claimants are that their lands were acquired by the District Collector, Chittoor by invoking provisions of section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dispensing enquiry under section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and thereafter the Land Acquisition Officer- cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor had passed an award vide proceedings ROC no. F/4348/1999 dated 29-08-2002 and the claimants have received the compensation awarded under protest representing the Land

Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor to refer the matter under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 of this Court for adjudication of their clams; that the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue

Divisional Officer, Chittoor did not choose to pay the crop damages in respect of their acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands for the period from 09-10-1985 to 14-05-2001 (from the date of taking advance possession till the date of publication of draft notification) as such the claimants as they are deprived of other statutory benefits under section

PSCJ, CTR4L.A.O.P. No.54/2003 23(1A), 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the said period; that the claimants have not raised any crops in the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands from the date of taking advance possession by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Madanapalle due to removal of soil up to 10 feet and commencement of the construction work; that prior to taking possession of the acquired/notified and unacquired / un-notified lands the claimants were raising sugarcane, paddy and groundnut crops in the said lands; that the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation

Department, Madanapalle had removed the soil from the unacquired/un- notified lands and dumped the same to the tank bund and the unacquired/notified lands of the 2nd to 5th claimants are now submerged in the water and the 2nd to 5th claimants cannot cultivate the said lands as such the claimants are entitled to 50% of market value of the unacquired / un-notified lands; that the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands are situated on the tank of Gangodu vanka, Kollapalle village, Irala Mandal,

Chittoor and fit for raising two wet crop and one year sugarcane crop; that the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands are situated on the state high way between Irala Mandal – Chittoor town and there are fruit processing industries on the either side of the said road; that the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands are situated at the distance of only 3 k.m from Vara Siddhi Vinayakaswamy Temple, Kanipakam; that there is lift irrigation system in the acquired/notified and unacquired/un- notified land in survey number 249 through well and 7.5 H.P. electric motor pumps; the claimants were raising two wet crops and one year sugarcane crop for several decades prior to taking advance possession of the acquired/notified and there were mango garden in the unacquired/unnotified lands; that there are several colleges and schools within reachable distance from the the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands; that there is

PSCJ, CTR5L.A.O.P. No.54/2003 a sugar factory near the the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands where the claimants supplying their sugarcane crops; that there are two milk dairies in the vicinity of the acquired/notified and unacquired/un- notified lands; that there are two seasonal mango marketing yards in the neighborhood of the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands within the distance of 15 k.m; that frequent bus service is available from the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands to Chittoor town; that the

Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor had taken basic value of the lands from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Chittoor and took the same into consideration for fixing the market value of the acquired/notified lands ignoring the potential value; that the annual yield of sugarcane crop is estimated to 38 metric tons as per the yield certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District and the rate of the sugarcane in the year 2001-2002 was Rs. 753.50 per metric tons according to the rate furnished by the Managing Director, Chittoor

Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited, Chittoor and the annual income per acre in respect of the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands works out to be Rs. 14,316.50/- and by applying 10 years multiplier of annual income the cost of the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands per acre is Rs. 1,43,165/-; that the prevailing price for the sugarcane crop per metric ton in the year 1984-1985 was Rs. 211.90 and on the basis of the same the annual income from the acquired/notified and unacquired/un- notified lands will bw Rs. 4,026.10 per acre, after deducting 50% towards cost of cultivation, and the crop damages to the claimants have to be awarded at the said rate from the year 1985-2001 in respect of the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands, and prayed this Court to enhance the compensation as claimed by the claimants.

PSCJ, CTR6L.A.O.P. No.54/2003

3.On the side of the Referring Officer, the Land Acquisition Officer- cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor has been examined as PW1 and

Exhibit A1 has been exhibited. On the side of the claimants, RW1 to RW10 are examined and Exhibits B1 to B13 are exhibited apart from exhibiting

Exhibit C1 and C2.

4.Heard the arguments on behalf of both parties. The claimants have also filed written arguments. Perused the material on record.

5. Basing on the rival contentions of both sides, the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the 1 st claimant is entitled to crop damages in respect of notified/acquired land and computation of market value of acquired/ notified lands on the basis of

sugarcane crop yield as prayed for?

2. Whether the 2 nd to 5 th claimants are entitled to crop damages in respect of their respective acquired/notified and unacquired/un­notified lands, computation of the market value of their the acquired/notified and unacquired/un­notified lands on the

basis of the sugarcane crop yield, and 50% of market value in respect of the

unacquired / un­notified lands as prayed for by them?

3. To what relief/reliefs?

6. POINT nos 1 and 2:-

Since the points are inter connected with each other as such this Court intend to answer them together.

The claimants are claiming that the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-

Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor had decided the compensation awarded @ Rs. 29,000/- per acre on the basis of market value of the lands available in office of Sub-Registrar, Chittoor as per entries in Exhibit A1 and since no sale of the lands took place in the neighborhood of the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands, the market value has to computed on the basis of sugarcane crop yield per acre, that were raised by them for several decades prior to taking of advance possession by the Executive Engineer,

Minor Irrigation Department, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. Furthermore, the claimants are also claiming that they are entitled to crop damages for the

PSCJ, CTR7L.A.O.P. No.54/2003 period from taking of advance possession of the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation

Department, Madanapalle, Chittoor District till the date of publication of draft notification under section 4(1) Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The above claims are made by the claimants on the premise that they were raising sugarcane crops in the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands for several decades prior to taking over their advance possession by the Executive

Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. RW1 to

RW5 in their chief examination affidavits filed in lieu of their chief examination have reiterated the averments of their claim statements regarding their entitlement to crop damages in respect the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands and enhancement of market value of the acquired/notified on the basis of sugarcane crop yield per acre. The Land

Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor has consistently denied the versions of RW1 to RW5 regarding raising of sugarcane crops in the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands by them during the course of their cross examination. Therefore, the burden on the claimants to prove that they were raising sugarcane crop prior to taking possession of the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands by the Executive

Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Madanapalle, Chittoor District in the year 1985. In order to substantiate their said claim, the claimants have examined RW6 to RW10 and also placed reliance on Exhibits B2 to B4,

Exhibit B9, B11 to B13. There is no specific evidence of RW6, the Sarpanch,

before this Court that the claimants were raising sugarcane crop or any other

crop much less rain-fed crop in their lands prior to taking advance possession the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands by the Executive

Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. The claimants have not produced any revenue records of several decades to

PSCJ, CTR8L.A.O.P. No.54/2003 show the types of crops that were raised by them in their lands prior to taking advance possession of the acquired/notified and unacquired/un- notified lands by Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department,

Madanapalle, Chittoor District. The claimants have relied upon Exhibits B12 and B13 to show that no such revenue records are available. Exhibits B12 and B13 pertain to the fasli 1392 to 1395 corresponding to 1982 to 1985 wherein the Tahsildars concerned have stated that adangals for the said years of Konapalle revenue village, Irala Mandal are not available. It is the pleaded case of the claimants that they were raising sugarcane crops in the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands for several decades. The claimants could have produced revenue records prior to 1982 to substantiate their contention that they were raising sugarcane crop in their lands for several decades, but no explanation is forth coming from their side about their non-production. Exhibits B9 and B11 shows that the father of the 4th and 5th claimants have supplied approximately 10 metric tons of sugarcane in the year 1981 and 1986 to the sugar factory. It is significant to note that the claimants say that they did not raise any crops in the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands after taking advance possession by the

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Madanapalle, Chittoor

District in the year 1985 as the said lands were not fit for cultivation. Hence, it cannot be said that the father of the 4th and 5th claimants had supplied sugarcane crop under Exhibit B11 that were raised and harvested from the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands of the 4th and 5th claimants. Moreover, Exhibit B9 is also found to be not helpful to the case of the claimants they were raising sugarcane crop in their lands as Exhibit B9 only discloses that approximately 10 metric tons of sugarcane were supplied by the father of 4th and 5th claimants to the sugar factory but it do not disclose that the said supplied sugar cane crops were raised in the

PSCJ, CTR9L.A.O.P. No.54/2003 acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands of the 4thand 5th claimants when it is not the case of the 4th and 5th claimants that they are not having any other lands except their acquired/notified and unacquired/un- notified lands. Exhibit B2 shows the average yield of the sugarcane, paddy and groundnut crops in the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands, and adjacent villages of Chinnavenkatampalli village, Kollapalli revenue village, Irala Mandal. It discloses that the average yield of paddy is 19 quintals per acre, of ground nut is 3.5 quintals per acre and of sugarcane is 38 metric tons per acre. The evidence of RW7 discloses that he is not the author of Exhibit B2 and he has no personal knowledge about the contents of

Exhibit B2, and that yield of the crop will depend on the nature and quality of the soil. Exhibit B3 is the average yield particulars of sugarcane crop pertaining to Irala Mandal from the year 1995-1996 to 2000-2001. RW8 categorically states during the course of cross examination that data given under Exhibit B3 do not pertain to the acquired lands. Sans availability of any acceptable evidence except interested testimonies of RW1 to RW5 that sugarcane crops were raised by the claimants in the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands, Exhibits B2 and B3 cannot be said to be of any aid to the claimants. The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional

Officer, Chittoor during the course of cross examination of RW1 to RW5 no doubt suggests to them that they were raising rainfed crops in the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands and also admits during the course of his cross examination that the claimants are entitled to crop damages from 09-10-1985 to 15-05-2001 thereby implying that the claimants were raising rainfed crops in the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands prior to taking of advance possession by the

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Madanapalle, Chittoor

District, and they are entitled for crop damages, but the claimants are not

PSCJ, CTR10L.A.O.P. No.54/2003 claiming crop damages and enhanced market value on yield method on the ground that they were raising rainfed crops in the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands. The yield of the crop, as also stated by RW6 during the course of cross examination, will depend upon the nature and quality of the soil. The claimants also did not adduce any evidence to prove that they were raising sugarcane crops in the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands prior to taking advance possession by the

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Madanapalle, Chittoor

District. Moreover, the claimants have not even suggested to PW1 during the course of cross examination that they are raising sugarcane crops or rainfed crops in the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands prior to taking advance possession by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation

Department, Madanapalle, Chittoor District and that the potential value of the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands is more due to its geographical location as pleaded by them in their claim statements. Hence this Court do not find any reason to award crop damages to the claimants in respect of the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands, and also enhancement in the market value of the acquired/notified lands on sugarcane yield method as claimed by them.

7.The report of the Advocate commissioner under Exhibit C1 shows that the unacquired/un-notified lands of 2nd to 5th claimants are in fact situated in survey number 236/1 and 240/1 of Kollapalle revenue village and during the course of execution of the warrant he found that there are large pits in the unacquired/un-notified lands with depth of 10 to 15 feet, that the soil has been removed from the said pits, that there is no access to the unacquired/un-notified lands, and it appears that they will be submerged in water if the water is accumulated in the tank for storage purpose. There is no denial of the testimonies of RW2 to RW5 before this Court by the Land

PSCJ, CTR11L.A.O.P. No.54/2003 Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor regarding taking of advance possession of unacquired/un-notified lands admeasuring Ac. 4.22 cents of the 2nd to 5th claimants by the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation

Department, Madanapalle, Chittoor District along with admittedly acquired/notified lands. The report of the Advocate commissioner as well as the photographs enclosed to Exhibit C1 shows that the un-notified/ un- acquired lands of the 2nd to 5th claimants are rendered unfit for cultivation as the top soil has been removed from the said lands for constructing the bund of the tank, therefore, the 2nd to 5th claimants are entitled to 50% of the market value of the unacquired/un-notified lands admeasuring Ac. 4.22 cents as damage.

8.Accordingly, this Court in view of foregoing discussion hold that the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor has not committed any irregularity in computing the market value of the notified/acquired lands @ 29,000/- per acre and that the claimants are not entitled for crop damages in respect of the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands, and also enhancement in the market value of the acquired/notified lands on yield method as they have miserably failed to prove that they were raising sugarcane crops in the acquired/notified and unacquired/un-notified lands prior to taking advance possession by the

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Madanapalle, Chittoor

District, however, the 2nd to 5th claimants are held entitled to 50% of market value of the unacquired/un-notified lands admeasuring Ac. 4.22 cents in survey numbers 236/1 and 240/1 of Kollapalle revenue village Accounts,

Irala Mandal, Chittoor District computed @ Rs. 29,000/- per acre. These points are answered accordingly.

PSCJ, CTR12L.A.O.P. No.54/2003

09. POINT No.3:-

In the result, the reference is allowed in part holding that the 2nd to 5th claimants are entitled for compensation computed @ 50% on the market value of the land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer – cum -

Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor @ 29,000/- per acre in respect of 1.10 ½ cents, 1.10 ½ cents, 1.100 ½ cents and 1.100 ½ cents of lands respectively.

The 2nd to 5th claimants are further entitled to 12 % on 50% of said market value from the date of taking of advance possession till the date of passing of award, and the 2nd to 5th claimants are also entitled to interest according to section 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.

Dictated to Stenographer-III and after transcription by him, corrected by

me and pronounced in open court this the 31st day of December, 2018.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Chittoor.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for :-

Referring Officer:- Claimants:-

PW1: Penchala KishoreRW1: K. Gurumoorthy Reddy

RW2: K. Sreeramulu Reddy

RW3: K. Malleswar Reddy

RW4: K. Bhaskar Reddy

RW5: K. Mahendra Reddy

RW6: J. Doraswamy Reddy

RW7: K.Mahesh Kumar

RW8: T.B. Naresh Kumar

RW10: P. Rajendra Reddy

Exhibits marked for

Referring Officer:-

Exhibit A1 is the Award proceedings.

PSCJ, CTR13L.A.O.P. No.54/2003 Claimants:-

Exhibit B1 is the certified copy of basic valuation register issued by the Sub- Registrar, Chittoor.

Exhibit B2 is the yield certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer, Irala Mandal.

Exhibit B3 is the certificate showing average yield particulars of sugarcane issued by the Chief Planning Officer, Chittoor.

Exhibit B4 is the sugarcane price list issued by Managing Director, the Chittoor Co-op. Sugars Ltd, Chittoor.

Exhibit B5 is the pattadar pass book issued by the MRO, Irala Mandal.

Exhibit B6 is the pattadar pass book issued in the name of Malleswar Reddy.

Exhibit B7 is the pattadar pass book issued in the name of Bhaskar Reddy.

Exhibit B8 is the pattadar pass book issued in the name of Mahendra Reddy.

Exhibit B9 is the sugarcane supplied to the Co-op. Sugar Factory, Chittoor.

Exhibit B10 is the Electricity service connection issued by APSEB, Chittoor.

Exhibit B11 is the sugar cane supplied to the Co-op. Sugar Factory, Chittoor.

Exhibit B12 is the endorsement given by the Tahsildar, Bangarupalyam Mandal, Chittoor District dated 15-10-2009.

Exhibit B13 is the letter addressed by the Tahsildar, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District to the Superintendent, Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Chittoor dated 23-06-2009.

Exhibits marked under ‘C’ series:

Exhibit C1 is the report and rough sketch.

Exhibit C2 is the letter addressed by the Managing Director, the Co-op. Sugar Factory, Chittoor.

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Chittoor.

Draft / Fair Order. L.A.O.P. No. 54/2003

Dt: 31-12-2018

PSCJ, CTR 1 RCA No. 02­2017; RCC 01/2013

IN THE COURT OF RENT CONTROLLER APPELLATE AUTHORITY – CUM-

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present :-Sri KUMAR VIVEK, Rent Controller Appellate Authority – cum

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Monday, this the 31st day of December, 2018

R.C.A. No. 02 of 2017

R.C.C. No. 01 of 2013

BETWEEN:

G. Ramakrishna Naidu, S/o Rajagopal Naidu, aged 56 years, residing at D. No. 12-483, Samireddy street, Chittoor Town and District.

.....Appellant

AND:

R.K. Ramamoorthy, S/o R. N. Krishnamoorthy Mudaliar, aged 77 years, residing at Pillayar Koil Street, Chittoor Town and District.

....Respondent.

The Appellant being aggrieved by the Order dated 07-08-2017 in RCC No. 01/2013 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor and made in

R.C.C. No. 01 of 2013

BETWEEN: G. Ramakrishna Naidu, S/o Rajagopal Naidu, aged 56 years, residing at D. No. 12-483, Samireddy street, Chittoor Town and District. … Petitioner. AND: R.K. Ramamoorthy, S/o R. N. Krishnamoorthy Mudaliar, aged 77 years, residing at Pillayar Koil Street, Chittoor Town and District. … Respondent.

This Appeal is coming on before me for final hearing on 28-11-2018 in the presence of Sri T.K. Sundara Kumar, learned counsel for Appellant and of Sri K.P. Kumaraswamy, learned counsel for Respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this authority delivered the following :-

O R D E R

Aggrieved against the orders dated 07-08-2017 in RCC no. 01/2013 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chittoor ordering eviction of the appellant from the demised premises within period of three months from the date of said order this appeal has been preferred on the grounds that there is no willful default in payment of monthly rent by the appellant to the

PSCJ, CTR 2 RCA No. 02­2017; RCC 01/2013 respondent and the advance amount deposited by the appellant with the respondent is in excess of total monthly rent payable @ Rs. 500/- and at the time of passing of the orders in RCC no. 01/2013 since RCA no. 02/2012 has been pending before the appellate Authority as such orders in RCA no.

01/2013 ought not to have been passed by the learned Rent Controller,

Chittoor.

2.Before the learned Rent Controller, Chittoor the respondent has examined himself as PW1 and got exhibited Exhibits P1 to P9 in support of his case and the evidence of PW2 was eschewed by the learned Rent

Controller, Chittoor as he did not appear before the Rent Controller, Chittoor.

On the side of the appellant, the appellant has examined himself as RW1 and got examined the Accounts Clerk of the learned Rent Controller cum Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor as RW2.

3.Heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides. Perused the material on record.

4. The point for consideration is:-

“Whether the order dated 07­08­2017 passed in RCC No. 01/2013 by the

learned Rent Controller, Chittoor is liable to be interfered with on the ground put

forth by the appellant”?

5.POINT:-

The version of the appellant is that he is the tenant of respondent in respect of the demised property, a non-residential property, from the month of May, 1993 on monthly rent of Rs. 500/- and when the respondent had refused to receive the rent @ Rs. 500/- per month for the month of January, 2010 then the appellant had sent the said rent to the respondent through money order and when the same was refused by the respondent then the appellant has got issued a notice dated 16-02-2010 calling upon the respondent to furnish his bank account and after issuance of reply notice

dated 18-02-2010 by the respondent to the appellant denying the quantum

of monthly rent, the appellant had filed RCC no. 02/2010 against the

PSCJ, CTR 3 RCA No. 02­2017; RCC 01/2013 respondent under section 8 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction)

Control Act, 1960 seeking for deposit of monthly rents before the learned

Rent Controller, Chittoor and the appellant had continued to deposit the monthly rent without any default till the disposal of RCC no. 02/2010 by the

Rent Controller, Chittoor and thereafter he has obtained permission from the learned Rent Controller, Chittoor for deposit the monthly rents; that the respondent is not in practice of issuing rent receipts to the appellant and the respondent is having advance deposit of Rs. 10,000/- and he can set off the rent amount from the said advance amount, and that the appellant did not commit any willful default in payment of monthly rent. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that the appellant had paid monthly rent @ 1,000/- till the month of December, 2009 and with malafide intention he sent money order for Rs. 500/- towards monthly rent for the month of

January, 2010 as such the respondent did not receive the same and thereafter the appellant had sent a demand draft for a sum of Rs. 1,500/- in the month of April, 2010 towards arrears of rent for the month of January and

February, 2010 and monthly rent for the month of March, 2010 and the same was also not received by the respondent as the appellant had sent the said amount by under valuing the monthly rent and in the meantime the appellant has filed RCC no. 02/2010 on the file of learned Rent Controller,

Chittoor and after obtaining permission for depositing monthly rents before the learned Rent Controller, Chittoor, the appellant did not regularly deposit even the under-valued monthly rent @ 500/- and committed willful default; that the respondent had already deducted the monthly rent payable by the appellant to the respondent @ Rs. 1,000/- from the advance amount and the advance amount of Rs. 10,000/- was exhausted by the month of October, 2010 and thereafter the appellant did not pay monthly rent @ Rs. 1,000/-; that RCC no. 02/2010 was dismissed by the learned Rent

Controller, Chittoor on merits on 04-05-2012 and even after the disposal of said rent control petition the appellant did not tender monthly rent to the

PSCJ, CTR 4 RCA No. 02­2017; RCC 01/2013 respondent and he is due to pay the monthly rent to the respondent from the month of November, 2010.

6.The admitted facts of the case are that on 13-05-1993 the appellant has entered into the lease agreement in respect of the demised property with the respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 500/-, that the demised property is a non-residential property, and that the respondent has refused to receive monthly rents sent by the appellant @ 500/- per month for the months of January, 2010 and February, 2010.

7.Thus from the rival submissions of the appellant and the respondent it follows that there is dispute between the parties with respect to the quantum of monthly rent payable by the appellant to the respondent in respect of the demised property and also with respect to regular/irregular payment of monthly rent by the appellant to the respondent.

8.The consistent stand of the respondent is that he has been issuing rent receipts to the appellant, but the same has been denied by the appellant. In order to substantiate his contention that the monthly rent in respect of the demised property is not Rs. 500/- but more than that, reliance is placed by the respondent on Exhibits P6 to P10. The appellant contends that Exhibits P6 to P10 are fabricated documents. Cross examination of the respondent before the learned Rent Controller, Chittoor discloses that he did not refer Exhibits P6 and P9 in his petition in RCC no. 01/2013, that there is no signature of the appellant in Exhibits P6 to P9 and the same were written and maintained by him (respondent) and that Exhibits P6 to P9 were in his possession at the time of filing of RCC no. 01/2013. The cross examination of the respondent shows that though Exhibits P6 to P9 were in his custody but for the reasons best known to him they were not referred in the petition filed by him and also they are written and maintained by him and thus it can be said that Exhibits P6 to P9 are self-serving documents, and it will not help to conclude safely that the monthly rents in respect of the demised property

PSCJ, CTR 5 RCA No. 02­2017; RCC 01/2013 payable by the appellant to the respondent is not Rs. 500/- but more than that. However, during the course of cross examination of the respondent, the appellant himself has brought on the record of the case that the respondent is having four shops adjoining to the demised property and all the four shops are let out on monthly rent. It goes to show that the respondent is having four other tenants. The appellant could have been examined all or any of the said tenants of the respondent to substantiate his contention that the agreed monthly rent from the year 1993 till the month of December, 2009 is Rs.

500/- only, and during the intervening period there is no enhancement in the quantum of monthly rent. Exhibit P5 is the municipal tax demand notices in respect of the demised property for the years 1998, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2013 and they indicates that from 1998 till 2008 there is steep increase in the property tax in respect of the demised property. When there is steep increase in the property tax in respect of the demised property during the period of tenancy it is very hard to believe that there was no enhancement of monthly rent by the appellant in respect of the demised property and that the appellant had continued to pay same monthly rent in the year 2009 that he was paying in the year 1993. Therefore, in the circumstance of the case this Authority has no hesitation that by the month of December, 2009 the monthly rent payable by the appellant in respect of the demised property was not Rs. 500/-, but more than said amount.

9.The evidence of RW2 before the learned Rent Controller, Chittoor is crucial one for deciding the rival contentions of the parties regarding regular/irregular payment of monthly rent by the appellant to the respondent. RW2 has deposed before the learned Rent Controller, Chittoor on the basis of entries in Civil Courts Deposits register that on 26-7-2010 the appellant has paid Rs. 3,000/- towards monthly rent for six months @

Rs. 500/- per month, that on 18-09-2010 the appellant has paid Rs. 1,000/- towards monthly rent for two months and thereafter on 09-10-2011 the appellant has paid Rs. 3,500/- towards monthly rent for 7 months; that on

PSCJ, CTR 6 RCA No. 02­2017; RCC 01/2013 04-03-2015 the appellant has paid Rs. 500/-; that on 04-06-2015 the appellant has paid Rs. 1000/-; that on 12-08-2015 the appellant has paid

Rs. 500/-; that on 01-10-2015 the appellant has paid Rs. 1500/-; that on 06-11-2015 the appellant has paid Rs. 1000/-; that on 10-12-2015 the appellant has paid Rs. 500/-; that on 20-01-2016 the appellant has paid

Rs. 500/-; that on 09-02-2016 the appellant has paid Rs. 500/-; that on 10-03-2016 the appellant has paid Rs. 500/-; that on 04-05-2016 the appellant has paid Rs. 500/-; that on 20-06-2016 the appellant has paid

Rs. 1000/-; that on 26-07-2016 the appellant has paid Rs. 500/-; that on 24-08-2016 the appellant has paid Rs. 500/-; that on 21-09-2016 the appellant has paid Rs. 500/-; and after 21-09-2016 the appellant did not deposit any amount in RCC no. 01/2013. Thus, a bare perusal of the cross examination of RW2 leaves no iota of doubt that the appellant was irregular in depositing even the alleged monthly rent @Rs. 500/-in respect of the demised property before the learned Rent Controller, Chittoor thereby constituting willful default. Furthermore, in the instant case this Court in foregoing paragraph held that the monthly rent payable by the appellant to the respondent in respect of the demised property is certainly not Rs. 500/- and it is more than the said amount. Thus the appellant can be said to have made monthly deposits albeit irregular before the learned Rent Controller,

Chittoor by under valuing the monthly rent, and such deposits made by under valuing the monthly rent by the appellant cannot be termed as deposit of agreed rent. In the authority reported in 2008 AIHC 3168 (FB) between

Mohammed Izhar Ali Vs. Olive Founseca (died) per LRs. And others

the honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that Compliance of procedure contemplated under Rule 5 of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and

Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 in letter and spirit is mandatory, and its non- compliance would make a tenant willful defaulter. The cross examination of the appellant before the learned Rent Controller, Chittoor shows that he did not issue any notice to the respondent on such deposits as required under

PSCJ, CTR 7 RCA No. 02­2017; RCC 01/2013

Rule 5 (4) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1961.

In the authority reported in 1997 (2) ALD 184 between Kamala bai and others Vs. E. Raheswari the honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that It obligatory on the part of the tenant to send the rents every month to the landlord after deducting money order commission and by mere filing of an application under section 8 (5) of A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and

Eviction) Control Rules, 1961 the tenant is not absolved from sending the rents awaiting the orders of the Court on his application. It is not the case of the appellant that arrears for the months of January, 2010 to March, 2010 and rent for the month of April, 2010 were sent by him through money order to the respondent in the month of May, 2010 after the respondent had refused to receive the demand draft for Rs. 1500/- sent by him in the month of April, 2010 and again in the month of June, 2010 he had again sent money order towards arrears of rent for the month of January to April, 2010 and rent for the month of May, 2010 to the respondent. The evidence of RW2 discloses the only consolidated payment was made by the appellant on 26-07-2010 for Rs. 3,000/- allegedly towards arrears of rents for the months of January, 2010 to May, 2010 and also towards alleged rent for the month of

June, 2010. Hence, it can be said that on these counts also the appellant has committed default. No explanation is forthcoming from the side of the appellant regarding non issuance of notice to the respondent regarding deposits made by him allegedly towards monthly rent before the learned

Rent Controller, Chittoor or regarding not sending alleged monthly rents to the respondent after the month of April, 2010 till the deposit of Rs. 500/- made by him in the month of July, 2010. Therefore, in the circumstance of the case this Authority adjudicates that the appellant has committed willful default in payment of monthly rent to the respondent, and the learned Rent

Controller, Chittoor has not committed in any error in ordering eviction of the appellant from the demised property within three months from the date of

PSCJ, CTR 8 RCA No. 02­2017; RCC 01/2013 order in RCC no. 01/2013. This point is answered accordingly against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

10.In the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs directing the appellant to vacate the demised property within two months from the date of this order failing which the respondent is entitled to evict the appellant from the demised property as per the provisions of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 and the rules made there under.

Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 31st day of December, 2018.

Rent Controller Appellate Authority –

cum - Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: Nil

Rent Controller Appellate Authority – cum - Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Draft/ Fair Order R.C.A. No. 02/2017 R.C.C. No. 01/2013

Dt. 31-12-2018

PSCJ, CTR 1 RCA No. 02­2012; RCC 02/2010

IN THE COURT OF RENT CONTROLLER APPELLATE AUTHORITY – CUM-

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present :-Sri KUMAR VIVEK, Rent Controller Appellate Authority – cum

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Monday, this the 31st day of December, 2018

R.C.A. No. 02 of 2012

R.C.C. No. 02 of 2010

BETWEEN:

G. Ramakrishna Naidu, S/o Rajagopal Naidu, aged 52 years, residing at D. No. 12-483, Samireddy street, Chittoor Town and District.

.....Appellant

AND:

R.K. Ramamoorthy, S/o R. N. Krishnamoorthy Mudaliar, aged 60 years, residing at Pillayar Koil Street, Chittoor Town and District.

....Respondent.

The Appellant being aggrieved by the Order dated 04-05-2012 in RCC No. 02/2010 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor and made in

R.C.C. No. 02 of 2010

BETWEEN:

G. Ramakrushna Naidu, S/o Rajagopal Naidu, aged 52 years, residing at D. No. 12-483, Samireddy street, Chittoor Town and District. … Petitioner. AND:

R.K. Ramamoorthy, S/o R. N. Krishnamoorthy Mudaliar, aged 60 years, residing at Pillayar Koil Street, Chittoor Town and District. … Respondent.

This Appeal is coming on before me for final hearing on 28-11-2018 in the presence of Sri T.K. Sundara Kumar, learned counsel for Appellant and of Sri K.P. Kumaraswamy, learned counsel for Respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this authority delivered the following :-

O R D E R

Aggrieved against the order dated 04-05-2012 in RCC no. 02/2010 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Chittoor refusing to permit the appellant to deposit monthly rent @ 500/- in respect of the demised property holding that the appellant has filed to prove that the rent offered/tendered by him is @ 500/- per month and the same has been paid by him since the

PSCJ, CTR 2 RCA No. 02­2012; RCC 02/2010 inception of the tenancy from the month of May, 1993 to the respondent, this appeal has been preferred.

2. Write about exhibits marked before the court below 3.Heard the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides. Perused the material on record.

4. The point for consideration is:-

“Whether the order dated 04­05­2012 passed in RCC No. 02/2010 by the learned

Rent Controller, Chittoor is liable to be interfered with on the ground put forth by the

appellant”?

5.POINT:-

The appellant is claiming that monthly rent in respect of the demised property is Rs. 500/- and not Rs. 1,000/- as claimed by the respondent, and the appellant, by following the procedure prescribed under section 8 of the

A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, has been depositing monthly rent @ 500/- before the learned Rent Controller, Chittoor and the respondent did not adduce any evidence to prove that the monthly rent is Rs. 1,000/- and not Rs. 500/- and these facts were not considered by the learned Rent Controller, Chittoor as such the order dated 04-05-2012 passed in R.C.C. 02/2010 by the learned Rent Controller, Chittoor is liable to be set aside, and the appeal has to be allowed with costs.

6.The admitted facts of the case are that on 13-05-1993 the appellant has entered into the lease agreement in respect of the demised property with the respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 500/-, that the demised property is a non-residential property, that the respondent has refused to receive monthly rents sent by the appellant @ 500/- per month for the months of January, 2010 and February, 2010 under Exhibits A3 and A4, and exchange of Exhibit A1 legal notice and Exhibit A2 reply notice between the appellant and the respondent.

PSCJ, CTR 3 RCA No. 02­2012; RCC 02/2010 7.The contention of the appellant is that he has been paying monthly rent @ 500/- from the date of inception of the tenancy i.e., from the month of May, 1993 to the respondent till the month of December, 2009 and the respondent is not following the procedure of issuing rent receipts to the appellant and due to misunderstandings between the appellant and the respondent, the respondent has refused to receive the monthly rent @ 500/- for the month of January, 2010. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent is that from the month of April, 2004 the monthly rent has been enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- and the appellant has been paying monthly rent @

Rs. 1,000/- till the month of September, 2009 and thereafter he committed default in payment of rent for the months of October, November and

December, 2009 and later after issuance of Exhibit B4 notice by the respondent to the appellant under certificate of posting demanding payment of arrears of rend for the said months or else to vacate the demised property by March, 2010, the respondent had paid the arrears of rent for the said months in the month of February, 2010 and obtained a hand receipt from the respondent but again the appellant sent a demand draft, in the month of

April, 2010, for an amount of Rs. 1,500/- towards monthly rent for the months January, 2010 to March, 2010 @ Rs. 500/- and the respondent has returned the said demand draft as the monthly payable rent is Rs. 1,000/- and the arrears of rent till the month of April, 2010 was Rs. 3,000/-.

8.According to section 8 of the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and

Eviction) Control Act, 1960 it is the duty of the tenant to pay the rent in advance to landlord and obtain receipt for the amount duly paid. Thus, the burden is on the tenant of the demised property to obtain rent receipt from the landlord after making due payment of the monthly rent. It has been brought on the record of the case by the appellant himself during the course of cross examination of the respondent that there are four other tenants in

PSCJ, CTR 4 RCA No. 02­2012; RCC 02/2010 the building of the respondent. The appellant did not examine the other tenants of the building of the respondent to prove that the respondent is not in following the practice of issuance of rent receipts to his tenants including the appellant. Thus, the self-serving testimony of the appellant in that regard cannot be safely relied upon. RCC no. 02/2010 was filed before the learned

Rent Controller, Chittoor on 08-03-2010 by the appellant. The claim of the appellant that he had paid monthly rent @ Rs. 500/- in respect of the demised property from the month of May, 1993 till the month of December, 2009 without any enhancement also appears to be illogical and unbelievable considering the non-residential nature of the demised property and also increase in the rates of the property taxes as well as depreciation in the value of rupee during the 17 long years of occupation of demised property by the appellant as a tenant.

9.The rent for the month of January, 2010 is due and payable by the appellant by the end of the month. Admittedly the respondent has refused to receive the monthly rent for the month of January, 2010 under

Exhibit A3. The appellant did not sent any money order for the arrears of rent for the month of January, 2010 as well as the rent for the month of February, 2010, total for Rs. 1,000/-, to the respondent in the month of March, 2010.

Exhibit A4 is the money order tendering payment of rent for the month of

February, 2010 for Rs. 500/- only. It is the duty of the appellant to again send arrears of rent allegedly Rs. 500/-for the month of January, 2010, after deducting money order commission, to the respondent in the month of

March, 2010. No explanation is forth coming from the side of the appellant as to why arrears of rent pertaining to the month of January, 2010 was not again sent to the respondent in the month of March, 2010. Therefore, on that count also it can be safely concluded that the appellant has defaulted in payment of monthly rent to the respondent for the month of January, 2010.

PSCJ, CTR 5 RCA No. 02­2012; RCC 02/2010 10.When the appellant has come up with a specific plea that the monthly rent in respect of the demised property is Rs. 500/- and he has tendered/offered monthly rents for the months of January, 2010 and

February, 2010 to the respondent under Exhibits A3 and A4, and there is no acceptable evidence adduced by the appellant to prove that the monthly rent in respect of demised property is Rs. 500/- and not Rs. 1,000/- as claimed by the respondent, and the appellant himself has defaulted in making payment of arrears of alleged rent @ 500/- for the month of January, 2010 to the respondent in the month of March, 2010 hence this Authority holds that there is no bonafide on the part of the appellant in seeking to deposit the monthly rent @ Rs. 500/-. Accordingly, this Court confirms the order dated 04-05-2012 in R.C.C. no. 02/2010 passed by the learned Rent

Controller, Chittoor dismissing the R.C.C. no. 02/2010. This point is answered against the appellant and in favor of the respondent.

11.In the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer-III, transcribed him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 31st day of December, 2018.

Rent Controller Appellate Authority –

cum - Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: Nil

Rent Controller Appellate Authority – cum - Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Draft/ Fair Order R.C.A. No. 02/2012 R.C.C. No. 02/2010

Dt. 31-12-2018

PSCJ, CTR1 EP. 26-17; OS. 55/04

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present :-Sri KUMAR VIVEK,

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Friday, this the 28th day of December, 2018

E.P.No. 26 of 2017

O.S.No. 55 of 2004

BETWEEN:

1. V.C. Veera Reddy, S/o Pulla Reddy, aged 69 years.

2. V. Veerendra Reddy, S/o V.C. Reddy, aged 44 years. The above petitioners are residing at D. No. 18-1-451-A, Bhavani Nagar, Tirupati Town, post and Mandal, Chittoor District.

…..Petitioners/Decree holders.

AND:

1. P. Doraswamy Reddy (died)

2. P. Pattabhi Reddy, S/o Doraswamy Reddy, aged 55 years,

working as Assistant Technician, ECIL, Kushayaguda,

Hyderabad.

3. P. Sakunthalamma, W/o P. Doraswamy, aged 76 years.

4. P. Neelima, W/o Pattabhi Reddy, aged 46 years, residing at D. No. 4-85- 113, Bhavani Enclave, Flat no. 207, Raji Reddy Nagar, Dommaiguda, Hyderabad.

5. C. Rathnamma, W/o C. Bhaskar Reddy, aged 61 years. The respondents 3 and 5 are residing at Kampalli, Pullur Village, Yerrepalle Panchayat, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District.

…..Respondents/Judgment debtors.

This petition coming on 06.12.2018 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Sreenivasulu Reddy, learned Advocate for the petitioners/decree holders and of Sri. G.Ramesh, learned Advocate for the respondent no.2 / Judgment debtor no.2, and having stood over for consideration on perusing the material on record, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

This is execution petition filed on behalf of the decree holders under

Order 21 Rule 48(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure for attachment of the monthly salary, and other allowances of the 2nd judgment debtor.

The decree holders submit that they have filed the suit for recovery of the debt due under the registered simple mortgage deed and the said suit was preliminarily decreed on 31-08-2005 and subsequently final decree was

PSCJ, CTR2 EP. 26-17; OS. 55/04 also passed in terms of the said preliminary decree on 25-10-2007 and the decree passed in the said suit has not been challenged by the judgment debtors by way of filing any appeal before the appellant Court; that subsequently the decree holders have filed E.P. No. 86/2014 for sale of the mortgaged properties for realization of the decreetal amount in which the 2nd judgment debtor has taken a defense that the judgment debtors have sold the mortgaged properties to one I. Sankar Reddy under a registered sale deed dated 11-10-2001 and prior to that they had entered into a un- registered agreement of sale on 19-04-2000 with said I. Sankar Reddy after receiving advance amount of Rs. 50,000/- on the same day and the same has also been recited in the said registered sale deed and under such circumstance the decree holders feel that there is minimal possibility of bidders coming forward to participate in the auction of the mortgaged properties in the said execution petition and there is least possibility of sale of mortgaged properties in the said execution petition and even if the sale is conducted it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings and in essence the decree holders will not be able to realize the fruits of the decree hence this petition has been filed; that the 2nd judgment debtor is working as an employee in the ECIL, Hyderabad and drawing monthly salary of Rs. 85,000/- approximately and he is making efforts for early retirement from his service; that in these circumstance after obtaining permission of this Court under

Order 21 Rule 21 of Code of Civil Procedure for simultaneously execution of the decree, this petition has been filed.

2.Counter is filed on behalf of the 2nd Judgment debtor pleading that the mortgage transaction comprises of several properties and one of such properties is a DKT land and since DKT land is not alienable as per the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 as such the mortgage transaction in respect of the said DKT land is

PSCJ, CTR3 EP. 26-17; OS. 55/04 inseparable from the mortgage transaction in respect of other properties as such the entire mortgage transaction is void and consequently the decree is un-enforceable; and that the 2nd judgment debtor is employed at Hyderabad and his Drawing and Disbursing Officer is stationed at Hyderabad and 2nd judgment debtor is not a government employee as such this execution petition filed under Order 21 Rule 48(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable, prayed this Court to dismiss the petition.

3.Heard arguments advanced on behalf of both parties. Perused the material on record.

4.Now, the point for consideration is:

“Whether the monthly salary of the 2 nd Judgment debtor can be attached for

realization of the decreetal amount on the ground put forth by the decree holders”?

5.POINT:

The admitted facts of the case are that the final decree passed in the suit on 25-10-2007 has become final and binding on the judgment debtors including 2nd judgment debtor. It is also not in controversy between the parties that the 2nd judgment debtor is working in ECIL, Hyderabad and drawing handsome monthly salary.

6.The first defense of the 2nd judgment debtor is that the entire suit mortgage transaction is void as it comprises of DKT land which is not alienable according to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977, and the mortgage transaction in respect of the said DKT land is inseparable from the mortgage transaction in respect of the other properties hence his monthly salary, and other allowances cannot be attached. In the authority reported in AIR 1970 SC 1475 between

Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi Vs. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman the Honorable

Supreme Court of India at para no.6 held that A Court executing of decree cannot go beyond the decree between the parties or their representatives and it must take the decree according to its tenor, and cannot entertain any

PSCJ, CTR4 EP. 26-17; OS. 55/04 petition that the decree was incorrect in law or on fact until it is set aside at an appropriate proceeding in appeal or revision, a decree even if it be erroneous is still binding between the parties. Therefore, in the light of the ratio laid in the authority supra the 2nd judgment debtor cannot pleaded in this execution petition that the final decree passed in the suit is inexecutable as it is based on a void mortgage transaction.

7.The second contention of the 2nd judgment debtor is that he is not a government employee and he is not working within the jurisdiction of this Court and his Drawing and Disbursing Officer is also not stationed within the jurisdiction of this Court as such this petition is not maintainable. Order 21 Rule 48 (1) of Code of Civil Procedureenables attachment of a railway company or of a local authority or of a corporation engaged in any trade or industry which is established by a Central, Provincial or State Act, and of a Government company as defined under section 617 of the

Companies Act, 1956 subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Admittedly the 2nd judgment debtor is an employee of ECIL, Hyderabad which is a Government of India Enterprise under the department of Atomic Energy.

In the authority reported in 2008 (4) ALD 735 between Janapati Jaypal

Reddy Vs. Sannihita Chit Funds Pvt. Limited, Karimnagar the

honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that It is very clear from the

provisions of Order 28 Rule 48 (1) of Code of Civil Procedure, so far as the attachment of the salary is concerned, that the Court can order attachment whether the judgment debtor or his Drawing and Disbursing Officer is or is not within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, the said contention raised by the 2nd judgment debtor is also not tenable in view of the provisions of Order 21 Rule 48 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and also in view of the ratio laid down by the honorable High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the authority referred supra.

PSCJ, CTR5 EP. 26-17; OS. 55/04

8.Accordingly this Court in view of the foregoing discussion hold that the monthly salary, and other allowances of the 2nd defendant can be attached subject to the provisions of section 60 of Code of Civil Procedure.

This point is answered accordingly in favour of the decree holders and against the 2nd judgment debtor.

9.In the result, issue warrant under Order 21 Rule 48 of the Code of

Civil Procedure for attachment of the monthly salary, and other allowances of the 2nd judgment debtor on deposit of batta.

Dictated to Stenographer-III, transcribed by him, verified and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 28th day of December, 2018.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: -NIL- [

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

CHITTOOR.

Draft / Fair Order

EP 26/2017

OS 55/2004

Dt. 28-12-2018

 THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CHITTOOR.

Present:­ Smt. A. Naga Sailaja, 

Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Chittoor FAC Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor Thursday this the 3rd day of January, 2019

E.P. No. 72 of 2016

O.S. No. 67/2015

Between:

K. Guruswamy Naidu … Decree Holder And:

1) Smt. A. Maheswari (Died)

2) A. Rajani

3) Usha Nandini

4) Jyothiswaran

5) Selvam

6) Muralikrishna

7) Bhuvaneswari

8) Padmanabhan

J.Drs. 2 to 8 are added as per orders in E.A. No. 173/2016

dt: 12­07­2017

… Judgment Debtors

This petition coming on this day before me for hearing, Sri C. Suresh Reddy, advocate for D.Hr. and of Sri Md. Mustaff, Advocate for J.Drs. 1 to 8 and this court made the following:­

ORDER

This an execution petition filed under order 21 Rule 64 and 66 of

CPC to order sale of the E.P. schedule mentioned properties which are already attached in I.A. No. 133/2015 in O.S. No. 67/2015 in court auction for realization of the E.P. amount with further interest and costs

F.S. memo filed by the D.Hr and the same is recorded. Hence, E.P.

is terminated. 

Attachment effected against the schedule property on is hereby raised. 

Pronounced by me in open court, this the 3rd day of January, 2019.

Sd/­ A. Naga Sailaja, Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, FAC Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor.

Appendix of evidence.

­NIL­ 

Sd/­A. Naga Sailaja,

FAC PSCJ CTR.