Sri M.Nageswara Rao

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDYAL.

Present: Sri T. M.C.Vijaya Kumar, II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

Friday, the 1st Day of May, 2015.

L.A.O.P.No.5/2012

and its batch of O.Ps.3/2012, 4/2012, 6/2012, 24/2013

& 25/2013.

L.A.O.P.5/2012:-

Between:-

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal. ….. Referring Officer

And

Ramireddigari Nemili Reddy…… Claimant

L.A.O.P.3/2012:-

Between:-

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal. ….. Referring Officer

And

Talikota Sankaramma…… Claimant

L.A.O.P.4/2012:-

Between:-

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal. ….. Referring Officer

And

Talikota Jayalakshmi…… Claimant

L.A.O.P.6/2012:-

Between:-

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal. ….. Referring Officer

And

Ramireddigari Sivanagi Reddy…… Claimant

L.A.O.P.24/2013:-

Between:-

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal. ….. Referring Officer

And

Gopavaram Venkata Reddy…… Claimant 2

L.A.O.P.25/2013:-

Between:-

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal. ….. Referring Officer

And

Gopavaram Hussain Reddy…… Claimant -oo0oo-

These petitions coming on 28.4.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.V.Ravindra Kumar, Assistant Government

Pleader for Referring Officer and of Sri M.Umamaheswar Reddy & Sri

M.Venu Babu, Advocates for the Claimants, and after hearing on both sides and after having stood over for consideration till today, this court made the following:-

C O M M O N O R D E R

These references have been made under Sec.18 of the Land

Acquisition Act by the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional

Officer, Nandyal at the request of the claimants who were not satisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award

No.5/2010 dt.23-7-2010.

2. The claimants in O.P.Nos.3/2012, 4/2012 & 6/2012 have filed a memo dt.1-4-2013 and the claimants in O.P.Nos.24/2013 & 25/2013 have filed a memo dt.14.8.2014 to the effect that the said O.Ps., be clubbed together and that common enquiry be made on the basis of evidence presented in O.P.No.5/2012. Since all the references arise from the same award the above mentioned O.Ps have been clubbed with O.P.No.5/2012 for common enquiry and the common evidence for all the O.P has been recorded in O.P.No.5/2012.

3.A total extent of Ac.15.73 cents in various survey numbers in the village of Moolasagaram of Nandyal mandal belonging to the claimants in the above said O.Ps and others was acquired under the said award No.5/2010 dated 23.07.2010 for widening and deepening of Chamakalva on both sides in connection with the Nandyal Flood

Protection works.

3

4.The draft notification under Sec.4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in Kurnool Collector’s proceedings No.G1-2167/2009,

dated 29.9.2009 and published in two daily newspapers i.e., 1) Praja

Sakthi dt.19.10.2009 and (2) Public vision dt.19.10.2009. The substance of the Draft Notification was published by beat of tom-tom in the conspicuous places of the villages on 20.10.2009. Hence, the date of draft notification was taken as 29.09.2009.

5.The draft declaration under section 6 of the Act was published in the Kurnool District Gazette No.28/KNL, Part-I, Extra-ordinary dated 19.10.2009 and in two daily newspapers i.e., (1) Vishalandra dt.20.10.2009 and (2) Uttejitha dt.20.10.2009.

6.The notices under section 9 (1) and 10 published in the prescribed manner as required under rules and individual notices under section 9 (3) and 10 were served on the land owners and on the persons known or believed to be interested persons in the lands under acquisition. All the persons who attended for the award enquiry conducted on 10.6.2010.

7.In order to fix the market value of the lands of acquisition the registered sale statistics of the lands of Nandyal village have been obtained from the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Nandyal for a period of three years preceding from the date of notification i.e., from 15.10.2006 to 14.10.2009, they are altogether 81 sale transactions during the period. Out of the sale transactions except sale transactions No.8, 9, 19, 24, 25, 51, 54, 63, 64 and 80 all are discarded as far away sales.

Hence, they are not considered. Of all the ten sales, the sale No.80 fetches the highest market value. During the inspection of the lands, the ryots of the lands, surrounding the lands, under acquisition as well as the pattadars of the lands, under acquisition have stated that the prevailing market value of the lands within the vicinity of the lands, under acquisition is ranging from 20,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/- per acre. But they have neither produced nor adduced any documentary evidence in support of their claim. It is also stated that the sales are got registered at low price to evade stamp duty and the lands, under acquisition is abutting the Nandyal town. It is true that the layouts for house sites have been carried out on certain lands, which are adjacent 4 to the lands under acquisition and thus gained high residential potentiality. Hence, the above sale, which fetches the highest market value deserves to be taken as more reliable, reasonable and adoptable for fixing up the market value of the lands under acquisition. Taking the residential potentiality, fertility and situation of the lands under acquisition, the market value of the lands under acquisition is proposed at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre.

8.In addition to the land market value of the lands, solatium at 30% on the land value, 12% Additional Market value on the market value of the land from the date of publication of the draft notification to the date of award.

9.During the course of Award enquiry the land owners claimed compensation at higher market value ranging from Rs.50,00,000/- per acre, but, they have not produced any documentary evidence in support of their claim. They have claimed the compensation at

Rs.50,00,000/- per acre in the application filed under section 18(2).

Hence, their claims are not considered.

10.However, the claimants who were not satisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, they had received the compensation under protest and filed a memo requesting that their claim for enhanced compensation be referred to the civil court. Hence, these references.

11.The claimants have filed their respective claim statements contending that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not just and proper and that it is too meager. The Land Acquisition

Officer has not followed the rules of compensation as laid down by the various High Courts of the country. The criteria applied by the Land

Acquisition Officer, in fixing the compensation has no factual or legal basis. The Land Acquisition Officer had not followed the principles as laid down in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.

12.The award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is illegal, arbitrary and not maintainable. The Land Acquisition Officer has not 5 made any proper enquiry and he has also not given any opportunity to the claimants to adduce evidence. The Land Acquisition Officer has not taken into consideration the potential value of the acquired lands in assessing their market value.

13.The Land Acquisition Officer has failed to consider the prices paid for comparable lands in the vicinity of the land acquired. The Land

Acquisition Officer has not exercised his individual discretion in fixing the market value. The Land Acquisition Officer has failed to consider the sales and purchases made in respect of lands in the neighbouring survey numbers.

14.The Land Acquisition Officer has discharged some sale transactions as boosted sales and he has commented that these sales are contemplated to impress the Land Acquisition proceedings to get the higher market value, but he did not examine vendor or vendee or witnesses to the above documents, to know the genuineness documents without making any enquiry, as the genuineness of documents the Land Acquisition Officer coming to the conclusion baseless and irrational. The compensation amount fixed by the Land

Acquisition Officer is too low and meager and does not represent the true and correct market value of the lands acquired on the date of section 4(1) notification. The actual value of the acquired land is

Rs.2,00,000/- per cent and there are several sales having taken place in the adjacent lands at the above said rate.

15.The acquired land is already in the developed area of Nandyal town. The acquired land is surrounded by APSRTC bus-stand and

Depot, Rani Maharani theater, Medicare Hospital, Veterinary

Government Hospital, Annapurna Bar and Restaurant, Chanakya Hotel,

Government Girls High School, Anjaneyaswamy temple, private school, shopping complexes, Hero Honda showroom, R.R.Maternity

Hospital, G.M. college of Education, number of banks, Gas Godown,

Auto Nagar, commercial spare parts shops, H.P. petrol pumps,

Nandyal-Kurnool main road, RTC bus-stand to Railway station road and other very busy locality are located nearby. Previouslythe Revenue

Divisional Officer acquired land for providing APSRTC bus- 6 depot 25 years ago and fixed the market value at Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. The acquired land is already purchased by the claimants for house sites and this aspect was not considered by Land Acquisition

Officer in fixing the market value. The Land Acquisition Officer considered agricultural lands for comparing and fixed the market value basing on them, but actually the acquired land is useful for house sites and located in commercial area. The potential value has to be taken into consideration for fixation of market value. Therefore, the said market value of Rs.2,00,000/- per cent may be fixed together with the

additional benefits of solatium and additional market value etc.,.

16.The claimants in O.P.No.5/2012 & O.P.No.24/2013 were examined as R.W.1 & R.W.2 respectively and in support of their claim

CW.1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 to 5 & Exs.C1 to C3.

Ex.B1 is Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007, Ex.B2 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007, Ex.B3 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007, Ex.B4 is certified copy of blue print plan issued by Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality Ex.B5 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.8.9.2006, Ex.C1 is

Commissioner report, Ex.C2 is Commissioner plan and Ex.C3 is location map by the Mandal Surveyor of Nandyal. In the meanwhile, a copy of award No.5/2010 dt.23-7-2010 was marked with consent as

Ex.A.1 and the Referring Officer has not presented any oral evidence.

17.While, the learned counsel for the claimants argued that the

Land Acquisition officer had fixed the market value of the land at a low level arbitrarily without taking into consideration the genuine sale transactions made in respect of lands in the vicinity and that he has not followed the rules of compensation while fixing the market value.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader has argued that the Land

Acquisition Officer had acted in accordance with the law, rules and regulations and all available material and that as such the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer could not be found fault with.

18. The crucial question is whether the Award No.5/2010 dt.23-7-2010 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer does not 7 adequately compensate the claimants for the loss of their lands in various survey numbers of Moolasagaram village of Nandyal Mandal that were acquired under draft notification dt.20.10.2009.

19.The claimant in L.A.O.P.5/2012 who was examined as R.W.1 states in his evidence that the acquired land is already in the developed area of Nandyal town, within the limits of Nandyal

Municipality. He further contended that the acquired land is surrounded by Pradhama Nandeeswara swamy temple, Kadapa-

Kurnool main road, I.L.T.D. Godowns, St.Wereburghs Hospital,

APSRTC bus stand and Depot, Rani Maharani theater, Medicare

Hospital, Veterinary Government Hospital, Chanakya Hotel,

Government Girls High School, Anjaneyaswamy temple, Private school, Shopping complexes, Hero Honda Showroom, R.R.Maternity

Hospital, G.M.College of Education, number of banks, Gas godowns,

Auto Nagar, commercial spare parts shops, H.P.Petrol pumps,

Nandyal-Kurnool main road, Saw Mill, RTC bus stand to Railway station road and other very busy locality are located nearby. He further contended that all the above institutions and colonies are developed one, the acquired land is useful for house sites and located in commercial area, but this aspect was not considered by Land

Acquisition Officer in fixing the market value. Ex.B1 is registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007 for 5745.76 sq.yards, in which the transaction took place for Rs.6,89,49,120/- which works out to Rs.5,80,00,000/- per acre. Ex.B2 is registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007 for 1306 sq.yards, in which the transaction took place for Rs.1,56,72,000/- which works out to Rs.5,80,00,000/- per acre. Ex.B3 is registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007 for 687.37 sq.yards, in which the transaction took place for Rs.81,49,440/- which works out to Rs.5,73,82,000/- per acre. He further deposed that Exs.B1 to B3 lands and reference lands are similar in nature, potentiality and market value. Ex.B4 blue print plan dt.3.8.2012 issued by the Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality in relation to municipal town limits area. Finally, he prays to fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.2,00,000/- per cent on the date of section 4(1) notification with statutory benefits. In his cross- examination, he admitted that his acquired land is behind Nandyal-

Kurnool main road and canal is adjacent to his acquired land.

8

20.In support of claim of claimants, they examined RW.2 who is claimant in LAOP.No.24/2013. He deposed in his evidence that himself and his brother who is claimant in LAOP.No.25/2013 were purchased an extent of AC.0.10 cents in Sy.No.438/A/3B under registered sale deed dt.8.9.2006 for the consideration of Rs.7,12,000/-. He further deposed that the said land has been acquired by the Referring Officer for widening and deepening of the Chamakalva in award No.5/2010 dt.23.7.2010 and fixed the market value of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits as compensation. He further deposed that the acquired land is already developed area and this aspect was not considered by the Land Acquisition Officer in fixing the market value.

He further deposed that the acquired land is useful for commercial purpose. He further deposed that the market value is increasing 15 to 20% p.a., cumulatively, thus the market value of the acquired land at the time of notification was Rs.1,50,000/- per cent. He further deposed that the Land Acquisition Officer acquired Ac.0.09 cents out of

Ac.0.10 cents of the claimants land, the remaining Ac.0.01 cent has become useless and the claimants have no access to the un-acquired portion of Ac.0.01 cent, hence the claimant is entitle to compensation for the un-acquired portion of Ac.0.01 cent. Ex.B5 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.8.9.2006 executed by 1.Mohammad Abdul Rafi

Hussain 2.Mohammad Abdul Hussain in favour of RW.2 and claimant in

LAOP.No.25/2013. Finally, he prayed to fix the market value at

Rs.2,00,000/- per cent with statutory benefits. In his cross- examination he deposed that there were transactions of sale and purchase of lands adjoining of Chamakaluva earlier to 4(1) notification.

21.The Advocate/Commissioner is examined as CW.1 and deposed that he inspected the acquired land along with Mandal Surveyor on 16.3.2015 and filed rough sketch, plan, Mandal surveyor location map along with his report (Exs.C1 to C3). He deposed in his cross- examination that the land of RW.2 is facing Nandyal-Kurnool main road.

9

22.On perusal of Exs.B1 to B5, it is observed that Ex.B1 is registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007 for 5745.76 sq.yards in Sy.No.424/2, 424/3 & 427/2, in which the transaction took place for

Rs.6,89,49,120/- which works out to Rs.5,80,00,000/- per acre. Ex.B2 is registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007 for 1306 sq.yards in Sy.No.424/3, in which the transaction took place for Rs.1,56,72,000/- which works out to Rs.5,80,00,000/- per acre. Ex.B3 is registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007 for 687.37 sq.yards in Sy.No.427/2, 424/2, in which the transaction took place for Rs.81,49,440/- which works out to

Rs.5,73,82,000/- per acre. On perusal of evidence of RW.1 it is learnt that Exs.B1 to B3 lands and reference lands are similar in nature, potentiality and market value. Ex.B4 blue print plan dt.3.8.2012 issued by the Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality in relation to municipal town limits area. Ex.B5 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dt.8.9.2006 for Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.438/A/3B for Rs.7,12,000/-. In support of Ex.B5 the claimant in LAOP.No.24/2013 was examined as

RW.2, he deposed that his land was acquired by the referring Officer under Ex.A1. On perusal of Ex.B5 it is learnt that RW.2 and claimant in

LAOP.No.25/2013 purchased an extent of Ac.0.10 cents in

Sy.No.438/A/3B for consideration of Rs.7,12,000/-.

23.The counsel for claimants argued that as per Ex.B5 the market value of acquired land works out at Rs.71,200/- per cent. He further argued that for the purpose of Land Acquisition Act the market value must be determined on the basis of sale deeds of comparable lands. In support of his arguments, the counsel for claimants relied on a decision (citation with Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.) of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court reported in LAWS (SC)-2004-1-97 in a case between

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan District Badaun

Through Its Secretary vs. Bipin Kumar, wherein it was held that “for the purpose of Land Acquisition Act the market value must be determined on the basis of sale deeds of comparable lands.” As per the above citation, it is learnt that the registered sale deed (Ex.B5) by which the claimants purchased the land was a good example for ascertainment of market value of the acquired lands. Admittedly, the claimants in LAOP.No.24/2013 and 25/2013 purchased Ac.0.10 cents of land for Rs.7,12,000/-, which works out to Rs.71,200/- per cent.

10

24.The counsel for claimants also relied on a citation reported in

LAWS (SC)-2013-4-53 in a case between Ashrafi vs. State of

Haryana, wherein it was held that the acquired land is in urban area, time lab should be calculated cumulatively. But, here the claimants failed to prove that the acquired land is in the vicinity of urban area.

Admittedly, the acquired land is in the vicinity of Moolasagarm village of Nandyal mandal. Hence, the claim of time lag cumulatively is rejected.

25. In the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (10) S.C.C. page 627 (Omprakash Vs. Union of India) it was held that value appreciation allowed at the rate of 12% per annum at a flat rate in respect of agricultural land does not call for any interference from the Apex court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

26.In the common Judgment dated 20.4.2006 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in the Appeal Nos.73, 65, 66 etc., of 2003

and cross objections, it was held that though the Hon’ble High Court had earlier consistently applied the rate 10% per annum for determining value appreciation of agricultural land, in view of the principle laid down in the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the rate of 12% per annum becomes applicable for calculating appreciation of value that immovable properties undergo over a period of time.

27.In the light of the said decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court it is clear that value appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum has to be factored in to the said market value reflected in Ex.B.5. The time gap is 3 years and 21 days between

Ex.B5 and Ex.A1.

28.On perusal of evidence of RW.1 & RW.2, it is learnt that Ex.B5 lands acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer pertaining to

Moolasagarm village of Nandyal mandal and also it is learnt that Ex.B5 lands acquired under Ex.A1 award. Hence, it can be said that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the 11 lands acquired from the claimants herein also deserves to be enhanced.

29.Further, there is no contra evidence with regard to similarity of the lands by the Land Acquisition Officer. The date of 4(1) notification of award under Ex.B5 was dt.8.9.2006 whereas the present acquired land notification was 29.09.2009. Hence, it is appropriate to fix the market value of the acquired lands by relying on Exs.B5.

30.Further, Ex.B.5 dt.8.9.2006, whereas the present acquired land notification was 29.9.2009. There is a gap of 3 years, 21 days. So, 12% escalation of market value is taken into consideration it comes to

Rs.97,330/- per cent rounded to Rs.97,000/- per cent for the lands under acquisition. Since the acquired land of the present claimants is in cents, hence reference is answered accordingly with regard to the cents only. Hence, I feel it is better to fix the market value for the acquired lands as Rs.97,000/- per cent.

31.Hence, in view of the facts, circumstances, evidence and citation submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants, I arrived to a conclusion to fix the market value for the lands under acquisition as

Rs.97,000/- per cent with all statutory benefits.

32.In the result, the references are answered as follows:

(i)the market value of the lands under acquisition is fixed at

Rs.97,000/- (Rupees ninety seven thousands only) per cent.

(ii)that 30% solatium on the market value fixed is granted as provided under Section 23 (2) of the Act.

(iii)in addition to it, the additional market value at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value is granted from the date of Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act to the date of Award.

(iv)that the claimants are entitled to interest at 9% per annum from the date of Section 4 (1) Notification for a period of one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till the date of payment on the enhanced market value,

additional market value and solatium.

12

(v)that the amount already paid by the Land Acquisition

Officer shall be deducted from the compensation fixed by the Court.

(vi) each party do bear their own costs involved in this petition.

Typed to my dictation, corrected signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 1st day of May, 2015.

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Referring Officer:- For Claimants:-

Nil R.W.1: R.Nemili Reddy R.W.2: Gopavaram Venkata Reddy

CW.1 : G.Mahanandi (AdvocateCommissioner)

Exhibits marked For Referring Officer:

Ex.A1: Copy of award No.5/2010 dt.23.7.2010 (marked by consent).

For Claimants:

Ex.B1 is Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007. Ex.B2 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007. Ex.B3 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007. Ex.B4 is certified copy of blue print plan issued by Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality. Ex.B5 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.8.9.2006.

Ex.C1 is Commissioner report. Ex.C2 is Commissioner plan. Ex.C3 is location map by the Mandal Surveyor of Nandyal.

II ASCJ, NDL.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDYAL.

Present: Sri T. M.C.Vijaya Kumar, II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

Friday, the 1st Day of May, 2015.

L.A.O.P.No.5/2012

and its batch of O.Ps.3/2012, 4/2012, 6/2012, 24/2013

& 25/2013.

L.A.O.P.5/2012:-

Between:-

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal. ….. Referring Officer

And

Ramireddigari Nemili Reddy…… Claimant

L.A.O.P.3/2012:-

Between:-

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal. ….. Referring Officer

And

Talikota Sankaramma…… Claimant

L.A.O.P.4/2012:-

Between:-

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal. ….. Referring Officer

And

Talikota Jayalakshmi…… Claimant

L.A.O.P.6/2012:-

Between:-

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal. ….. Referring Officer

And

Ramireddigari Sivanagi Reddy…… Claimant

L.A.O.P.24/2013:-

Between:-

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal. ….. Referring Officer

And

Gopavaram Venkata Reddy…… Claimant 2

L.A.O.P.25/2013:-

Between:-

The Land Acquisition Officer-cum- Revenue Divisional Officer, Nandyal. ….. Referring Officer

And

Gopavaram Hussain Reddy…… Claimant -oo0oo-

These petitions coming on 28.4.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.V.Ravindra Kumar, Assistant Government

Pleader for Referring Officer and of Sri M.Umamaheswar Reddy & Sri

M.Venu Babu, Advocates for the Claimants, and after hearing on both sides and after having stood over for consideration till today, this court made the following:-

C O M M O N O R D E R

These references have been made under Sec.18 of the Land

Acquisition Act by the Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional

Officer, Nandyal at the request of the claimants who were not satisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in Award

No.5/2010 dt.23-7-2010.

2. The claimants in O.P.Nos.3/2012, 4/2012 & 6/2012 have filed a memo dt.1-4-2013 and the claimants in O.P.Nos.24/2013 & 25/2013 have filed a memo dt.14.8.2014 to the effect that the said O.Ps., be clubbed together and that common enquiry be made on the basis of evidence presented in O.P.No.5/2012. Since all the references arise from the same award the above mentioned O.Ps have been clubbed with O.P.No.5/2012 for common enquiry and the common evidence for all the O.P has been recorded in O.P.No.5/2012.

3.A total extent of Ac.15.73 cents in various survey numbers in the village of Moolasagaram of Nandyal mandal belonging to the claimants in the above said O.Ps and others was acquired under the said award No.5/2010 dated 23.07.2010 for widening and deepening of Chamakalva on both sides in connection with the Nandyal Flood

Protection works.

3

4.The draft notification under Sec.4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in Kurnool Collector’s proceedings No.G1-2167/2009,

dated 29.9.2009 and published in two daily newspapers i.e., 1) Praja

Sakthi dt.19.10.2009 and (2) Public vision dt.19.10.2009. The substance of the Draft Notification was published by beat of tom-tom in the conspicuous places of the villages on 20.10.2009. Hence, the date of draft notification was taken as 29.09.2009.

5.The draft declaration under section 6 of the Act was published in the Kurnool District Gazette No.28/KNL, Part-I, Extra-ordinary dated 19.10.2009 and in two daily newspapers i.e., (1) Vishalandra dt.20.10.2009 and (2) Uttejitha dt.20.10.2009.

6.The notices under section 9 (1) and 10 published in the prescribed manner as required under rules and individual notices under section 9 (3) and 10 were served on the land owners and on the persons known or believed to be interested persons in the lands under acquisition. All the persons who attended for the award enquiry conducted on 10.6.2010.

7.In order to fix the market value of the lands of acquisition the registered sale statistics of the lands of Nandyal village have been obtained from the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Nandyal for a period of three years preceding from the date of notification i.e., from 15.10.2006 to 14.10.2009, they are altogether 81 sale transactions during the period. Out of the sale transactions except sale transactions No.8, 9, 19, 24, 25, 51, 54, 63, 64 and 80 all are discarded as far away sales.

Hence, they are not considered. Of all the ten sales, the sale No.80 fetches the highest market value. During the inspection of the lands, the ryots of the lands, surrounding the lands, under acquisition as well as the pattadars of the lands, under acquisition have stated that the prevailing market value of the lands within the vicinity of the lands, under acquisition is ranging from 20,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/- per acre. But they have neither produced nor adduced any documentary evidence in support of their claim. It is also stated that the sales are got registered at low price to evade stamp duty and the lands, under acquisition is abutting the Nandyal town. It is true that the layouts for house sites have been carried out on certain lands, which are adjacent 4 to the lands under acquisition and thus gained high residential potentiality. Hence, the above sale, which fetches the highest market value deserves to be taken as more reliable, reasonable and adoptable for fixing up the market value of the lands under acquisition. Taking the residential potentiality, fertility and situation of the lands under acquisition, the market value of the lands under acquisition is proposed at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre.

8.In addition to the land market value of the lands, solatium at 30% on the land value, 12% Additional Market value on the market value of the land from the date of publication of the draft notification to the date of award.

9.During the course of Award enquiry the land owners claimed compensation at higher market value ranging from Rs.50,00,000/- per acre, but, they have not produced any documentary evidence in support of their claim. They have claimed the compensation at

Rs.50,00,000/- per acre in the application filed under section 18(2).

Hence, their claims are not considered.

10.However, the claimants who were not satisfied with the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, they had received the compensation under protest and filed a memo requesting that their claim for enhanced compensation be referred to the civil court. Hence, these references.

11.The claimants have filed their respective claim statements contending that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is not just and proper and that it is too meager. The Land Acquisition

Officer has not followed the rules of compensation as laid down by the various High Courts of the country. The criteria applied by the Land

Acquisition Officer, in fixing the compensation has no factual or legal basis. The Land Acquisition Officer had not followed the principles as laid down in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act.

12.The award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is illegal, arbitrary and not maintainable. The Land Acquisition Officer has not 5 made any proper enquiry and he has also not given any opportunity to the claimants to adduce evidence. The Land Acquisition Officer has not taken into consideration the potential value of the acquired lands in assessing their market value.

13.The Land Acquisition Officer has failed to consider the prices paid for comparable lands in the vicinity of the land acquired. The Land

Acquisition Officer has not exercised his individual discretion in fixing the market value. The Land Acquisition Officer has failed to consider the sales and purchases made in respect of lands in the neighbouring survey numbers.

14.The Land Acquisition Officer has discharged some sale transactions as boosted sales and he has commented that these sales are contemplated to impress the Land Acquisition proceedings to get the higher market value, but he did not examine vendor or vendee or witnesses to the above documents, to know the genuineness documents without making any enquiry, as the genuineness of documents the Land Acquisition Officer coming to the conclusion baseless and irrational. The compensation amount fixed by the Land

Acquisition Officer is too low and meager and does not represent the true and correct market value of the lands acquired on the date of section 4(1) notification. The actual value of the acquired land is

Rs.2,00,000/- per cent and there are several sales having taken place in the adjacent lands at the above said rate.

15.The acquired land is already in the developed area of Nandyal town. The acquired land is surrounded by APSRTC bus-stand and

Depot, Rani Maharani theater, Medicare Hospital, Veterinary

Government Hospital, Annapurna Bar and Restaurant, Chanakya Hotel,

Government Girls High School, Anjaneyaswamy temple, private school, shopping complexes, Hero Honda showroom, R.R.Maternity

Hospital, G.M. college of Education, number of banks, Gas Godown,

Auto Nagar, commercial spare parts shops, H.P. petrol pumps,

Nandyal-Kurnool main road, RTC bus-stand to Railway station road and other very busy locality are located nearby. Previouslythe Revenue

Divisional Officer acquired land for providing APSRTC bus- 6 depot 25 years ago and fixed the market value at Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. The acquired land is already purchased by the claimants for house sites and this aspect was not considered by Land Acquisition

Officer in fixing the market value. The Land Acquisition Officer considered agricultural lands for comparing and fixed the market value basing on them, but actually the acquired land is useful for house sites and located in commercial area. The potential value has to be taken into consideration for fixation of market value. Therefore, the said market value of Rs.2,00,000/- per cent may be fixed together with the

additional benefits of solatium and additional market value etc.,.

16.The claimants in O.P.No.5/2012 & O.P.No.24/2013 were examined as R.W.1 & R.W.2 respectively and in support of their claim

CW.1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 to 5 & Exs.C1 to C3.

Ex.B1 is Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007, Ex.B2 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007, Ex.B3 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007, Ex.B4 is certified copy of blue print plan issued by Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality Ex.B5 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.8.9.2006, Ex.C1 is

Commissioner report, Ex.C2 is Commissioner plan and Ex.C3 is location map by the Mandal Surveyor of Nandyal. In the meanwhile, a copy of award No.5/2010 dt.23-7-2010 was marked with consent as

Ex.A.1 and the Referring Officer has not presented any oral evidence.

17.While, the learned counsel for the claimants argued that the

Land Acquisition officer had fixed the market value of the land at a low level arbitrarily without taking into consideration the genuine sale transactions made in respect of lands in the vicinity and that he has not followed the rules of compensation while fixing the market value.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader has argued that the Land

Acquisition Officer had acted in accordance with the law, rules and regulations and all available material and that as such the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer could not be found fault with.

18. The crucial question is whether the Award No.5/2010 dt.23-7-2010 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer does not 7 adequately compensate the claimants for the loss of their lands in various survey numbers of Moolasagaram village of Nandyal Mandal that were acquired under draft notification dt.20.10.2009.

19.The claimant in L.A.O.P.5/2012 who was examined as R.W.1 states in his evidence that the acquired land is already in the developed area of Nandyal town, within the limits of Nandyal

Municipality. He further contended that the acquired land is surrounded by Pradhama Nandeeswara swamy temple, Kadapa-

Kurnool main road, I.L.T.D. Godowns, St.Wereburghs Hospital,

APSRTC bus stand and Depot, Rani Maharani theater, Medicare

Hospital, Veterinary Government Hospital, Chanakya Hotel,

Government Girls High School, Anjaneyaswamy temple, Private school, Shopping complexes, Hero Honda Showroom, R.R.Maternity

Hospital, G.M.College of Education, number of banks, Gas godowns,

Auto Nagar, commercial spare parts shops, H.P.Petrol pumps,

Nandyal-Kurnool main road, Saw Mill, RTC bus stand to Railway station road and other very busy locality are located nearby. He further contended that all the above institutions and colonies are developed one, the acquired land is useful for house sites and located in commercial area, but this aspect was not considered by Land

Acquisition Officer in fixing the market value. Ex.B1 is registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007 for 5745.76 sq.yards, in which the transaction took place for Rs.6,89,49,120/- which works out to Rs.5,80,00,000/- per acre. Ex.B2 is registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007 for 1306 sq.yards, in which the transaction took place for Rs.1,56,72,000/- which works out to Rs.5,80,00,000/- per acre. Ex.B3 is registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007 for 687.37 sq.yards, in which the transaction took place for Rs.81,49,440/- which works out to Rs.5,73,82,000/- per acre. He further deposed that Exs.B1 to B3 lands and reference lands are similar in nature, potentiality and market value. Ex.B4 blue print plan dt.3.8.2012 issued by the Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality in relation to municipal town limits area. Finally, he prays to fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.2,00,000/- per cent on the date of section 4(1) notification with statutory benefits. In his cross- examination, he admitted that his acquired land is behind Nandyal-

Kurnool main road and canal is adjacent to his acquired land.

8

20.In support of claim of claimants, they examined RW.2 who is claimant in LAOP.No.24/2013. He deposed in his evidence that himself and his brother who is claimant in LAOP.No.25/2013 were purchased an extent of AC.0.10 cents in Sy.No.438/A/3B under registered sale deed dt.8.9.2006 for the consideration of Rs.7,12,000/-. He further deposed that the said land has been acquired by the Referring Officer for widening and deepening of the Chamakalva in award No.5/2010 dt.23.7.2010 and fixed the market value of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits as compensation. He further deposed that the acquired land is already developed area and this aspect was not considered by the Land Acquisition Officer in fixing the market value.

He further deposed that the acquired land is useful for commercial purpose. He further deposed that the market value is increasing 15 to 20% p.a., cumulatively, thus the market value of the acquired land at the time of notification was Rs.1,50,000/- per cent. He further deposed that the Land Acquisition Officer acquired Ac.0.09 cents out of

Ac.0.10 cents of the claimants land, the remaining Ac.0.01 cent has become useless and the claimants have no access to the un-acquired portion of Ac.0.01 cent, hence the claimant is entitle to compensation for the un-acquired portion of Ac.0.01 cent. Ex.B5 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.8.9.2006 executed by 1.Mohammad Abdul Rafi

Hussain 2.Mohammad Abdul Hussain in favour of RW.2 and claimant in

LAOP.No.25/2013. Finally, he prayed to fix the market value at

Rs.2,00,000/- per cent with statutory benefits. In his cross- examination he deposed that there were transactions of sale and purchase of lands adjoining of Chamakaluva earlier to 4(1) notification.

21.The Advocate/Commissioner is examined as CW.1 and deposed that he inspected the acquired land along with Mandal Surveyor on 16.3.2015 and filed rough sketch, plan, Mandal surveyor location map along with his report (Exs.C1 to C3). He deposed in his cross- examination that the land of RW.2 is facing Nandyal-Kurnool main road.

9

22.On perusal of Exs.B1 to B5, it is observed that Ex.B1 is registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007 for 5745.76 sq.yards in Sy.No.424/2, 424/3 & 427/2, in which the transaction took place for

Rs.6,89,49,120/- which works out to Rs.5,80,00,000/- per acre. Ex.B2 is registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007 for 1306 sq.yards in Sy.No.424/3, in which the transaction took place for Rs.1,56,72,000/- which works out to Rs.5,80,00,000/- per acre. Ex.B3 is registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007 for 687.37 sq.yards in Sy.No.427/2, 424/2, in which the transaction took place for Rs.81,49,440/- which works out to

Rs.5,73,82,000/- per acre. On perusal of evidence of RW.1 it is learnt that Exs.B1 to B3 lands and reference lands are similar in nature, potentiality and market value. Ex.B4 blue print plan dt.3.8.2012 issued by the Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality in relation to municipal town limits area. Ex.B5 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dt.8.9.2006 for Ac.0.10 cents in Sy.No.438/A/3B for Rs.7,12,000/-. In support of Ex.B5 the claimant in LAOP.No.24/2013 was examined as

RW.2, he deposed that his land was acquired by the referring Officer under Ex.A1. On perusal of Ex.B5 it is learnt that RW.2 and claimant in

LAOP.No.25/2013 purchased an extent of Ac.0.10 cents in

Sy.No.438/A/3B for consideration of Rs.7,12,000/-.

23.The counsel for claimants argued that as per Ex.B5 the market value of acquired land works out at Rs.71,200/- per cent. He further argued that for the purpose of Land Acquisition Act the market value must be determined on the basis of sale deeds of comparable lands. In support of his arguments, the counsel for claimants relied on a decision (citation with Regent Computronics Pvt. Ltd.) of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court reported in LAWS (SC)-2004-1-97 in a case between

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan District Badaun

Through Its Secretary vs. Bipin Kumar, wherein it was held that “for the purpose of Land Acquisition Act the market value must be determined on the basis of sale deeds of comparable lands.” As per the above citation, it is learnt that the registered sale deed (Ex.B5) by which the claimants purchased the land was a good example for ascertainment of market value of the acquired lands. Admittedly, the claimants in LAOP.No.24/2013 and 25/2013 purchased Ac.0.10 cents of land for Rs.7,12,000/-, which works out to Rs.71,200/- per cent.

10

24.The counsel for claimants also relied on a citation reported in

LAWS (SC)-2013-4-53 in a case between Ashrafi vs. State of

Haryana, wherein it was held that the acquired land is in urban area, time lab should be calculated cumulatively. But, here the claimants failed to prove that the acquired land is in the vicinity of urban area.

Admittedly, the acquired land is in the vicinity of Moolasagarm village of Nandyal mandal. Hence, the claim of time lag cumulatively is rejected.

25. In the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (10) S.C.C. page 627 (Omprakash Vs. Union of India) it was held that value appreciation allowed at the rate of 12% per annum at a flat rate in respect of agricultural land does not call for any interference from the Apex court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

26.In the common Judgment dated 20.4.2006 passed by the

Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in the Appeal Nos.73, 65, 66 etc., of 2003

and cross objections, it was held that though the Hon’ble High Court had earlier consistently applied the rate 10% per annum for determining value appreciation of agricultural land, in view of the principle laid down in the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the rate of 12% per annum becomes applicable for calculating appreciation of value that immovable properties undergo over a period of time.

27.In the light of the said decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court it is clear that value appreciation at the rate of 12% per annum has to be factored in to the said market value reflected in Ex.B.5. The time gap is 3 years and 21 days between

Ex.B5 and Ex.A1.

28.On perusal of evidence of RW.1 & RW.2, it is learnt that Ex.B5 lands acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer pertaining to

Moolasagarm village of Nandyal mandal and also it is learnt that Ex.B5 lands acquired under Ex.A1 award. Hence, it can be said that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the 11 lands acquired from the claimants herein also deserves to be enhanced.

29.Further, there is no contra evidence with regard to similarity of the lands by the Land Acquisition Officer. The date of 4(1) notification of award under Ex.B5 was dt.8.9.2006 whereas the present acquired land notification was 29.09.2009. Hence, it is appropriate to fix the market value of the acquired lands by relying on Exs.B5.

30.Further, Ex.B.5 dt.8.9.2006, whereas the present acquired land notification was 29.9.2009. There is a gap of 3 years, 21 days. So, 12% escalation of market value is taken into consideration it comes to

Rs.97,330/- per cent rounded to Rs.97,000/- per cent for the lands under acquisition. Since the acquired land of the present claimants is in cents, hence reference is answered accordingly with regard to the cents only. Hence, I feel it is better to fix the market value for the acquired lands as Rs.97,000/- per cent.

31.Hence, in view of the facts, circumstances, evidence and citation submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants, I arrived to a conclusion to fix the market value for the lands under acquisition as

Rs.97,000/- per cent with all statutory benefits.

32.In the result, the references are answered as follows:

(i)the market value of the lands under acquisition is fixed at

Rs.97,000/- (Rupees ninety seven thousands only) per cent.

(ii)that 30% solatium on the market value fixed is granted as provided under Section 23 (2) of the Act.

(iii)in addition to it, the additional market value at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value is granted from the date of Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act to the date of Award.

(iv)that the claimants are entitled to interest at 9% per annum from the date of Section 4 (1) Notification for a period of one year and thereafter at 15% per annum till the date of payment on the enhanced market value,

additional market value and solatium.

12

(v)that the amount already paid by the Land Acquisition

Officer shall be deducted from the compensation fixed by the Court.

(vi) each party do bear their own costs involved in this petition.

Typed to my dictation, corrected signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 1st day of May, 2015.

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined For Referring Officer:- For Claimants:-

Nil R.W.1: R.Nemili Reddy R.W.2: Gopavaram Venkata Reddy

CW.1 : G.Mahanandi (AdvocateCommissioner)

Exhibits marked For Referring Officer:

Ex.A1: Copy of award No.5/2010 dt.23.7.2010 (marked by consent).

For Claimants:

Ex.B1 is Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007. Ex.B2 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007. Ex.B3 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.7.7.2007. Ex.B4 is certified copy of blue print plan issued by Commissioner, Nandyal Municipality. Ex.B5 is certified copy of registered sale deed dt.8.9.2006.

Ex.C1 is Commissioner report. Ex.C2 is Commissioner plan. Ex.C3 is location map by the Mandal Surveyor of Nandyal.

II ASCJ, NDL.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDYAL.

PRESENT:- SRI T.M.C.VIJAYA KUMAR, B.SC., LL.M.,

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDYAL.

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY, 2015.

HINDU MARRIAGE O.P. NO.77/2012

Between:-

M.Suresh Kumar Reddy…..Petitioner

And

M.Shiva Maheswari….. Respondent

-oo0oo-

This petition coming on 30.4.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Thulasi Reddy, Sri D.Prathap Reddy & Sri B.P.Sreenivasa

Reddy, Advocates for the Petitioner and of Sri B.Ramamohan Reddy & Sri

S.Rajagopal Reddy, Advocates for the Respondent, and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) r/w section 19 of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage between the Petitioner and

Respondent by passing a decree of divorce and for costs of the petition.

2.The brief averments of the affidavit of the Petition are that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent was solemnized on 16.10.2011 at

Kodanda Ramalayam, Sanjeevanagar, Nandyal town and their marriage was consummated. The petitioner and the respondent lived happily upto two months at Durvesi. Immediately after 15 days of the marriage, the respondent went for Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) coaching at Hyderabad and she stayed there upto 1 ½ months at Hyderabad. Later she came to the petitioner’s house and stayed upto one month with the petitioner. Since, the date of marriage, the respondent used to behave oddly uttering that respondent was not interested to live at Durvesi village and she demanded the petitioner to shift the family to Nandyal town and also insisted to do business at Nandyal town, but the petitioner refused her demand due to financial problems and requested to live at Durvesi village. Because of that reason the respondent used to harass mentally, abuse and ill-treat the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner tried to convince the respondent several times and requested her not to behave in such manner and pleaded to lead a happy marital life. But the respondent never paid any attention to the petitioner’s requests. The petitioner used all his efforts to 2 convince the respondent about the sacred ‘marital life’ and also the relation of ‘husband and wife’. But the respondent never cared the petitioner and used to ill-treat the petitioner and his family members. The reputation of the family members of the petitioner in the eyes of the society fell down due to the respondent’s acts. Then without any reason suddenly without knowledge of the petitioner, the respondent went to the house of her parents on 11.2.2012 and started to live there. After the marriage the respondent stayed a very few months jointly along with the petitioner at Durvesi village.

3.The respondent left the house of the petitioner on 11.2.2012 without any reasonable cause. Later the petitioner and his family members requested the respondent to return to Durvesi village as it creates bad name for their family in the society. Subsequently, in the month of March, 2012 the petitioner and his father by name Prathap Reddy sent the elders of their community to the respondent and they advised the respondent and her parents that the respondent not to withdraw the society of the petitioner.

But the respondent has not at all cared about their advice and behaved adamantly and did not care the words of the elders and she refused to come and live with the petitioner. The respondent was sending some messages to the petitioner through her mobile phone No.9642776015 unnecessarily stating in filthy language and defamed the petitioner’s reputation saying as ‘gay’ and some vulgar messages to the petitioner. This type of messages caused very much mental agony to the petitioner and also the respondent harassed the petitioner with cruelty by sending bad messages like ‘gay’. The petitioner is leading a miserable life on account of the respondent’s cruel attitude and most of the times the respondent disturbed the mind of the petitioner by sending indecent messages. The respondent made bad and false allegations against the family of the petitioner with the neighbours.

Finally, the Petitioner issued legal notice on 8.6.2012 to the respondent calling her to come and lead marital life with him. After receiving the same, the respondent gave a reply notice with all false allegations. Finally, the

Petitioner constrained to file the petition for granting divorce.

4.On the other hand, the respondent filed her counter denying the allegations made in the petition and further stated that the respondent was sending some messages through her mobile phone in filthy language is absolutely false and created one for the purpose of filing this unholy petition.

3

The respondent never behaved as cruelty as mentioned in the petition. At the time of marriage the parents of the respondent gave cash of

Rs.16,00,000/- towards dowry and also Rs.1,00,000/- towards sundry miscellaneous necessities of the family of petitioner and respondent. Soon after the marriage, the respondent joined the company of petitioner at

Durvesi village. As per the instructions of the petitioner, the respondent went to T.E.T. coaching at Hyderabad and she finished the said course with 1 ½ month and came to Durvesi village and lead happy marital life with the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner along with other family members of the petitioner started harassment against the respondent for want of additional dowry and the petitioner and his family members demanded the respondent, as to go to her parents house and bring an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards

additional dowry. The respondent expressed her inability to meet the illegal

demand of the petitioner as her parents already given huge amount by way of selling their immovable properties and now they are unable to give any

additional dowry amount. Then the petitioner and his family members are

harassing the respondent physically and mentally tortured every day for

additional dowry.

5.In the month of February, 2012 the petitioner and his family members beat the respondent and physically drove out her from their house with wearing clothes demanding her to go to her parents house and get the

additional dowry. Even before the marriage the petitioner and his family

members promised and also given assurance that they will keep the respondent and the petitioner any corporate cities like Banagalore,

Hyderabad to do the job, contra to the version of that the petitioner and his family members are compelling the respondent to stay only at Durvesi village and also compelled her to do all the maid servant works. So, the petitioner and his family members collusively cheated the respondent and her parents by taking huge amount of dowry by saying the above promise and the petitioner is not trying to get job after the marriage. Even after thrown out the respondent to her parents house, the petitioner and his family members demanded by phone calls to the respondent and her parents and stated that “you came to their house only if you bring additional dowry, otherwise we will not allow you to come to their house”. The petitioner and his family members along with some rowdy elements came to the house of the respondent’s parents on 6.6.2012 and threatened them to arrange 4

additional dowry amount, then the respondent’s parents replied that they

have no source of income and also already they had given huge amount of dowry by way of selling their immovable properties, then the petitioner and his family members grew wild and beaten the respondent and her parents with hands and legs.

6.Immediately on the same day the respondent along with her father approached the concerned police and gave complaint against the petitioner and his family members. Due to the political influence of the petitioner, they managed the police and not registered any case against them. There is no response from the concerned police. The respondent filed complaint under section 498-A, 323 and 506 IPC and under section 3 & 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal and case was forwarded to the concerned Gadivemula police station and they registered the crime against the petitioner and also arrested and they were released on bail and the case is pending. The petitioner has completed the

M.C.A., course and never tried to get job, this fact itself clearly goes to show that only to harass the respondent, the petitioner and his family members kept the respondent in Durvesi village and made the respondent as maid servant even though she is also an educated lady and the petitioner and his family members tortured the respondent physically and mentally in many ways for want of additional dowry. The promise made by the petitioner’s family at the time of marriage was not fulfilled and cheated the respondent and her family members, it clearly shows that the cruelty of petitioner and his family members. Without prejudice to the above contentions, the respondent is even now ready to lead happy marital life with the petitioner, if they fulfill the promise made by the petitioner and his family members at the time of marriage i.e., to do job by the parties as per their qualifications.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

7.On behalf of the Petitioner, the Petitioner himself is examined as P.W.1 and in his support PWs.2 to 4 are examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 are marked.

On behalf of the Respondent, the respondent herself is examined as R.W.1 and in support of her support RWs.2 & 3 and Exs.B.1 & B.2 are marked on her behalf.

8.Heard both sides.

5

9.Now, the point for consideration is:-

Whether the petition can be allowed by dissolving the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent?

10.Point:- It is an admitted fact that the marriage of the petitioner and respondent took place on 16.10.2011 as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community at Kodanda Ramalayam, Sanjeevanagar,

Nandyal town and mandal, Kurnool district.

11.The petitioner contended that since the date of marriage, the respondent used to behave oddly uttering that respondent was not interested to live at Durvesi village and she demanded the petitioner to shift the family to Nandyal town and also insisted to do business at Nandyal town, but the petitioner refused her demand due to financial problems and requested to live at Durvesi village, because of that reason the respondent used to harass mentally, abuse and ill-treat the petitioner and his family members. He further contended that the respondent was sending some messages to the petitioner through her mobile phone No.9642776015 unnecessarily stating in filthy language and defamed the petitioner’s reputation saying as ‘gay’ and some vulgar messages to the petitioner, this type of messages caused very much mental agony to the petitioner and also the respondent harassed the petitioner with cruelty by sending bad messages like ‘gay’. He further contended that he is leading a miserable life on account of the respondent’s cruel attitude and most of the times the respondent disturbed the mind of the petitioner by sending indecent messages. Finally, he prays to grant divorce.

12.On the other hand, the respondent filed her counter denying the allegations made in the petition and contended that she never behaved as cruel as mentioned in the petition. She further contended that at the time of marriage the parents of the respondent gave cash of Rs.16,00,000/- towards dowry and also Rs.1,00,000/- towards sundry miscellaneous necessities of the family of petitioner and respondent. She further contended that the petitioner along with other family members of the petitioner started harassment against the respondent for want of additional dowry and the petitioner and his family members demanded the respondent, as to go to her parents house and bring an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards additional 6 dowry, she expressed her inability to meet the illegal demand of the petitioner as her parents already given huge amount by way of selling their immovable properties and now they are unable to give any additional dowry amount. Then the petitioner and his family members are harassing the respondent physically and mentally tortured every day for additional dowry.

She further contended that in the month of February, 2012 the petitioner and his family members beat the respondent and physically drove out her from their house with wearing clothes demanding her to go to her parents house and get the additional dowry. She further contended that the petitioner and his family members grew wild and beaten the respondent and her parents with hands and legs. The promise made by the petitioner’s family at the time of marriage was not fulfilled and cheated the respondent and her family members, it clearly shows that the cruelty of petitioner and his family members. She further contended that the respondent is even now ready to lead happy marital life with the petitioner, if they fulfill the promise made by the petitioner and his family members at the time of marriage i.e., to do job by the parties as per their qualifications. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

13. The petitioner further contended that they lived happily upto two months at Durvesi and immediately after 15 days of the marriage, the respondent went for teacher eligibility test coaching at Hyderabad and she stated there upto 1 ½ months and thereafter she came to the house of petitioner and lead happy marital life. The respondent also accepted the same in her counter.

14. In support of the contention of the petitioner, he filed Exs.A1 to A5 and Exs.A7 to A9. Ex.A1 is wedding card, Ex.A2 is marriage photograph,

Ex.A3 is legal notice, Ex.A4 is reply notice, Ex.A5 is reply notice, Ex.A7 is

SIM card, Ex.A8 is receipt and Ex.A9 is list of messages.

15.The counsel for petitioner argued that the respondent was not interested to live at Durvesi village and demanded the petitioner to shift the family to Nandyal town and also insisted to do business at Nandyal town, but the petitioner refused her demand due to financial problems and requested to live at Durvesi village. Per contra, the counsel for respondent argued that even before the marriage the petitioner and his family members promised 7 that they will keep the respondent in any corporate cities like Bangalore,

Hyderabad for job, contra to the version of that the petitioner and his family members are compelling her to stay only at Durvesi village and compelled her to do maid servant works, so the petitioner and his family members collusively cheated her by taking huge amount of dowry. On perusal of evidence of PW.4 it is learnt that PW.1 is un-employee and he is idle. It is also learnt that PW.1 and RW.1 are well educated and they have capacity to do jobs, the contention of financial problems to put up the family at Nandyal is not acceptable.

16.The petitioner further contended that the respondent left the house of the petitioner on 11.2.2012 without any reasonable cause. Per contra, the counsel for respondent argued that the petitioner and his family members necked out the respondent from their house for additional dowry. In support of their contention, the respondent filed Ex.B1 & B2 FIR in Cr.No.29/2013 of

Gadivemula police station and charge sheet in C.C.No.352/2013. On perusal of Ex.B1 & B2 it is learnt that on the complaint of respondent and her parents the Gadivemula police registered a case under sections 498-A, 323 & 506 of Indian Penal Code and Secs.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the petitioner and his family members.

17.The counsel for petitioner further argued that the respondent was sending some messages to the petitioner through her mobile phone

No.9642776015 unnecessarily stating in filthy language and saying him as ‘gay’ and some vulgar messages to the petitioner, this type of messages caused very much mental agony to the petitioner and also the respondent harassed the petitioner with cruelty by sending bad messages like ’gay’. In support of his contention, he confronted RW.1 in her cross-examination on showing Ex.A6 identity card, she admitted that it belongs to her, but on further verifying on putting question with regard to the cell number that it belongs to her, she stated that the said identity card do not belongs to her.

In support of his contention PW.1 filed Ex.A7 SIM card, Ex.A8 receipt and

Ex.A9 list of messages. On perusal of Ex.A9, it is learnt Ex.A9 is computer copy and there is no authenticity on it. Hence, there is doubt on the credence of Ex.A9. On another occasion RW.1 stated in her cross- examination that she never had the cell number shown in Ex.A6. On perusal 8 of evidence of PW.1, it is learnt that he admitted in his cross-examination that he has not filed any document to show that to whom the said cell number i.e., 9642776015 belong.

18.On perusal of evidence of PWs.2 to 4, it is learnt that there is no specific date, time and venue of mediation or panchayath conducted for the reunion of PW.1 and RW.1 and their participation; moreover they are the relatives of PW.1. Hence, the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 have no trustworthy and it cannot be believed.

19.The counsel for petitioner further argued that the respondent assassinating the character of petitioner and causing mental agony to him which leads to grant divorce to him. In support of his contention the petitioner relied on a decision reported in 2007(5) ALT page 382 (DB), 1999(6) ALT page 141 (DB) and 2014(6) ALD page 552. The citation submitted by the counsel for the Petitioner, which do not suits to the facts of the case on hand.

20. The counsel for petitioner further argued that there is no love and affection between the petitioner and respondent and there is no possibility to reunion. In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in 1999(2) ALD page 508 (DB). On perusal of evidence of RW.1, it is learnt that she intend to join the petitioner and simply she demands to put up family in town for doing job only. On perusal of Ex.A3 legal notice and Ex.A4 reply notice it is learnt that the petitioner and respondent intend to live together and there is some minor misunderstandings arose in between them. Since, the respondent intends to live with the Petitioner, even, in the said circumstances that she wanted her husband.

21.The counsel for the respondent also relied on a decision reported in

2014(2) ALD 437 (DB), in a case between V.Venkateshwarlu v.

V.Mamatha, wherein it was held that “the ground of cruelty needs to be

proved with reference to specific acts and omissions. The mere fact

that one of the spouses is living separately cannot, by itself

constitute cruelty.” On perusal of above citation, it is learnt that respondent living separately is not a ground for decree of divorce and there are no specific acts and omissions to grant divorce. Hence, in the light of above facts, circumstances, evidences and material available on record, I am not inclined to allow the petition.

9

21.In the result, the Petition is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 1st day of May, 2015.

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

Appendix of Evidence (Witnesses examined)

For Petitioner For Respondent

P.W.1: M.Suresh Kumar Reddy R.W.1: M.Shiva Maheswari

P.W.2: D.Chandrasekhar Reddy R.W.2: V.Balanagi Reddy

P.W.3: M.Seshi Reddy R.W.3: Venkata Gopal Reddy

P.W.4: V.Nagaseshi REddy

Exhibits marked

For petitioner:

Ex.A1 is wedding card

Ex.A2 is marriage photograph

Ex.A3 is legal notice

Ex.A4 is reply notice

Ex.A5 is reply notice

EX.A6 is identify card-bus pass.

Ex.A7 is SIM card

Ex.A8 is receipt

Ex.A9 is list of messages.

For respondent :

Ex.B1 : Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.29/2013 dt.3.3.2013 of Gadivemula police station.

Ex.B2 : Certified copy of charge sheet in C.C.No.352/2013 before Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal.

II A.S.C.J, Ndl.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDYAL.

PRESENT:- SRI T.M.C.VIJAYA KUMAR, B.SC., LL.M.,

II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NANDYAL.

FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY, 2015.

HINDU MARRIAGE O.P. NO.77/2012

Between:-

M.Suresh Kumar Reddy, s/o M.Prathap Reddy, Aged about 31 years, Hindu, unemployee, r/o Durvesi village, Gadivemula mandal,

Kurnool district.…..Petitioner

And

M.Shiva Maheswari, D/o V.Bala Nagi Reddy, Aged about 28 years, Hindu, house wife, r/o back side of Chennakesava Anjaneyaswami Kalyana Mandapam, Mulasagaram, Nandyal town,

Kurnool district.….. Respondent

-oo0oo-

This petition filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) r/w section 19 of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 to dissolve the marriage between the Petitioner and

Respondent by passing a decree of divorce and for costs of the petition.

Petition presented on 7.12.2012 and filed on 17.12.2012. A Court Fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Sch.II Art.I (vii) of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act, 1956.

The cause of action for this Petition arose on 16.10.2011 when the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was performed at Nandyal and on 11.2.2012 when the respondent left the house of petitioner and they are residing within the jurisdiction of this court.

This petition coming on 30.4.2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Thulasi Reddy, Sri D.Prathap Reddy & Sri B.P.Sreenivasa

Reddy, Advocates for the Petitioner and of Sri B.Ramamohan Reddy & Sri

S.Rajagopal Reddy, Advocates for the Respondent, and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and passed the decretal order as follows:-

1) that the petition be and the same is hereby dismissed;

2) that each party do bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 01st day of May, 2015.

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

Page 2

Memo of Costs

For PetitionerFor Respondent

Stamp on VakalatRs. 2=00 Rs. 2=00

Stamp on PetitionRs. 10=00 --

Stamp on ProcessRs. 63=00 --

Advocate’s FeeRs.1000=00 Rs. Nil (not certified)

Writing ChargesRs. - Rs. --

Typing ChargesRs. 30=00 Rs. --

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

Total :Rs. 1105=00 Rs. --

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

II A.S.C.J, Ndl.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDYAL

Present: Smt T.Leelavathi

II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

Friday, the 28th day of September 2018

O.S.No.263/2008

1. Pathange Pullamma @Patange Pullama Bai, aged about 75 years, wife of Pathange Narayana Rao, Hindu, Agriculturist, Housewife, resident of H.No.1-4-27/72/28, Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad-80, rep. by her Power Of Attorney agent Dr.N.Madhava Rao, aged about 59 years, son of late N.Krishnaji Rao, Hindu, Doctor, Resident of H.No.1-4-27/72/28. Padmashli Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad-80 (died by L.Rs.)

2. Pathange Meenakshi Bai, W/o. Late R.M.Krishnaji Rao, Aged about 40 years, daughter of Late Pathange Pullamma @ Pathange Pullamma Bai, Hindu, retired Personal Officer, Electricity department.

3. Pathange Umamaheswari, W/o.N.Madhava Rao, Aged about 58 years, daughter of Late Pathange Pullamma @ Pathange Pullama Bai, Hindu, Joint Director in Health Department, Andhra Pradesh. … Plaintiffs

All are residents of H.No.1-4-27/72/28, Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad-80.

(Amended as per orders in I.A.No.88/2015 dated 28.02.2018) -Versus-

1. Bandili Raghunath Singh, S/o.Bandili Puli Ram Singh, Aged about 52 years, Hindu, Bank Employee (Terminated), resident of H.No.11/90-A, Sunkulamma Street, Nandyal, Kurnool District. (Died by his L.Rs, 3 and 4)

2. Pathange Ramamohan Rao, S/o. Pthange Pullamma @ Pullamma Bai, Hindu, Information Technology Manager, Presently resident of H.No.4, Ceremenho-Court, San Rafael, California-94903.

Permanent resident of H.No.1-4-27/72/28, Padmashali Colony, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad-80.

(Amended as per order in I.A.No.88/2015 dated 28.02.2018) 4

3. Anuradha Bai, W/o.R.Heera Singh, aged about 35 years, Hindu, Housewife, resident of H.No.30/2018, revenue quarters, Nandyal Town and Mandal, Kurnool District.

4. B.Swetha, W/o.B.Sankar Singh, aged about 30 years, Hindu, Housewife, resident of H.No.30/2018, revenue quarters, Nandyal Town and Mandal, Kurnool District.

(Amended as per order in I.A.No.525/2017 dated 20.12.2017) … Defendant

This petition has come for hearing on 18.09.2018 before me in the presence of Sri V.Rama Chandra Rao and Sri P. Chandra Sekhar Rao,

Advocates for the Plaintiffs and Sri T.Tulasi Reddy, Advocate for the

Defendant No.4, Sri P.Haneef, Advocate for the Defendant No.2,

Defendant No.3 is exparte, and upon perusing the material available on record, on hearing the arguments of plaintiff’s counsel and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The suit is filed for declaration that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 are absolute owners of property to an extent of Ac.2.96 cents in Sy.No.266 and 2nd Defendant is absolute owner of property to an extent of 0.80 cents in Sy.No.324 and for consequential permanent injunction and suit costs against the Defendants.

2. Plaintiffs submits that 1st plaintiff executed special power of attorney in favour of her agent Sri Dr.N.Madhava Rao on 23.09.2008 and accordingly he filed the suit. Plaintiff submits that Suit Schedule

Property and another property an extent of AC.3.57 cents in Sy.No.326 belongs to Kambhapati Satyanarayana S/o.Venkata Subbaiah of

Nandyal. One Sutraye Chinna Subbani Rao, S/o.Bindu rao filed

OS.No.375/1975 on the file of the then Principal District Munsif

Nandyal for recovery of money and obtained decree. Then he filed E.P.

No.458/1975 in OS.No.375/1975 on the file of Principal District Munsif

Nandyal bringing the plaint schedule property and another property an extent of Ac.3.57 cents in Sy.No.326 for sale. He also participated in the sale and became successful bidder. The sale was confirmed on 4 13.09.1976. He filed petition for delivery of possession of Suit Schedule

Property and another property and the court ordered delivery to

S.Chinna Subbani Rao. The court amin evicted K.Satya Narayana from the Suit Schedule Property and another property and delivered the possession of the same to Chinna Subbani Rao. Tom Tom was also effected in the village. The delivery was effected on 10.10.1976.

Delivery receipt was executed on 10.10.1976 which is attested by

Village elder and Village munsif. Thereafter Subbani Rao became the absolute owner of the property with exclusive possession and enjoyment and paid land revenue to the Government.

3. Plaintiff submits that Sy.No.1 to 2600 are primarily situated in

Nandyal village limits, later the properties in Sy.No.1 to 807 and

Sy.No.901 to 1131 of Nandyal village limits were placed in the

Moolasagaram village limits. Properties in Sy.No.1132 to 1624 of

Nandyal village limits were placed in the Kothapalli village limits. The

Sy.Nos.808 to 900 and 1625 to 2600 were placed in the Nandyal village limits. So that the Suit Schedule Property and the property in

Sy.No.326 AC.3.57 cents fall in the village limits of Moolasagaram.

4. Plaintiff submits that Chinna Subbani Rao have no sons and he got only one daughter by name pullamma. Her marriage was performed with one Pattangi Narayana Rao. Pullamma is also called as

Pattangi Pullamma @ Pattangi Pullamma Bhai. Chinna Subbani Rao bequeathed his entire property to his only daughter pullamma under a registered will dated 08.11.1979 in a sound disposing state of mind.

Chinna Subbani Rao died in the end of 1979 and thereafter pullamma became absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property and other properties bequeathed to her under the will. She also paid revenue for the said lands. The revenue authorities after due enquiry issued

Pattadhar Pass Book and entered her name in revenue records for the

Suit Schedule Property. Plaintiff submits that pullamma shifted her residence to Hyderabad leasing the Suit Schedule Property to

Kamalamma, Pullaiah and Subbadu. Later the land was kept barren for about three years and thereby she leased out her house to

Madhusudhana Rao and also requested him to look after the Suit

Schedule Property and her other properties. Madhusudhana Rao made the land fit for cultivation, as such Pullamma leased lout Suit Schedule 4

Property and other property to Madhusudhana Rao. Madhusuhdana

Rao availed jute seeds from National seed corporation Nandyal on 05.08.2008 and handed over the grower’s cash memo to the 1st plaintiff. Thus the 1st plaintiff is in constructive possession of the Suit

Schedule Property and physical possession is with her tenant

P.Madhusudhana Rao.

5. The 1st Defendant who was Bank Employee was terminated on the grounds of forgery and misappropriation, without manner of any right over the Suit Schedule Property with an intention to knock away the Suit Schedule Property trespassed into the schedule property on 20.09.2008 and ploughed the land with a tractor bearing No. AP 21YTR 85927 and damaged the jute crop and caused loss to a tune of

Rs.1,00,000/- and left the property. The tenant filed a report before police but the police did not take any action against the 1st Defendant.

Thus the plaintiff is constrained to file suit for declaration of right and title over the Suit Schedule Property and for consequential permanent injunction.

6. During the pendency of the suit 1st Defendant died on 09.10.2013 executing a registered will dated 02.03.1995 in favour of plaintiff’s 2, 3 and the 2nd Defendant bequeathing the Suit Schedule

Properties. As the 2nd Defendant is residing at USA he is made as

Defendant.

7. It is submitted that 1st Defendant died on 02.05.2017 leaving behind him, his two daughters as his legal heirs. Hence they are added as Defendants 3 and 4 in the suit.

8. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of right and title over the Suit Schedule Property and for consequential permanent injunction.

9. Defendant made his appearance through his counsel and filed his written statement denying the allegations made against him and further submitted that the Special Power of Attorney executed by 1st plaintiff in favour of Dr.Madhava Rao is not valid. He denied the title of

Subbani Rao that he purchased suit property and other property in

E.P.458/1975 in OS.375/1975. He submits that the predecessors of

the Defendants are not parties in Ep.458/1975 in OS.375/1975, who are in actual physical possession of the suit lands un-interruptedly for 4 more than 60 years till date raising crops in it. He submits that the property was never delivered to Chinna Subbani Rao. The defendant furnished the EP numbers and suit numbers stating that the EP numbers and OS numbers shown by plaintiff are false. He also denied that the suit Sy.No. is in Moolasagarma village limits as on today.

10. Defendant submits that the Suit Schedule Property is the ancestral property of the Defendants and his father executed a will in his favour dated 16.08.1990 and after his father’s death he is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. He further submitted that his parents filed some land revenue receipts in

OS.553/1973 and OS.554/1973 on the file of Principal District Munsif

Court, Nandyal for scaling down the contractual rate of interest in the money suits. The court has given finding that the Defendant parents owns and cultivate suit lands and scaled down the interest. He also submitted that the suit lands are identified as Bayamma Chenu as his grandmother is Bayamma.

11. Further due to the illegal activities of plaintiffs 1st Defendant was compelled to file a suit in OS.402/2008 against C.Venkateswarlu on the file of PJCJ Court, Nandyal in respect of this suit lands for permanent Injunction. He also obtained injunction orders in

IA.758/2008 in OS.402/2008 against said Venkateswarlu and his men.

He submits that the PJCJ court in IA.891/2008 has given police protection to the Defendant to protect his crop in the land in Sy.nO.325 of Moolasagaram Village. After filing of the above suit the plaintiff have chosen to file the present suit suppressing the facts and the plaintiff is judicially restrained from filing the suit and thus the Defendant submits that he is the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

12. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial?

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his ownership over the plaint schedule property?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant his men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property?

(iii) To what relief?

4

13. During the course of trial plaintiff’s examined 1st Plaintiff as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A18. Plaintiff No.3 is examined as PW2 and marked Exs.A19 to A22. The lessee of plaintiff’s is examined as PW3.

The defendants did not choose to cross examine PWs 1 to 3 or put forth any evidence on their behalf.

Heard counsel for the plaintiff.

14. Issue No.1

Plaintiff to prove her right and title over the Suit Schedule

Property examined herself as PW1, reiterating the contents of plaint in her examined in chief and further deposed that her father Ch.Chinna

Subbani Rao purchased Suit Schedule Property in court auction petition in EP.No.458/1975 in OS.No.375/1975 along with other property and took delivery of possession of the said land through due process of law. In support of her version she marked the proceedings in EP.No.458/1975 in OS.No.379/1975 as Exs.A1 to A7.

Ex.A1: Sale Certificate issued in favour of Suthraye Chinna

Subbani Rao (father of Plaintiff).

Ex.A2: Dated 13.08.1976 Certified Copy of Delivery Petition filed by S.Subbanni Rao Dt.18.09.1976.

Ex.A3: Certified Copy of delivery warrant E.A.No.394/76 in

E.P.No.376/1975 in OS.No.458/75 on the file of the

Principal district Munsif Court, Nandyal dt.08.10.1976.

Ex.A4: Certified Copy of Ameen return Dt.11.10.1976.

Ex.A5: Certified Copy of delivery receipt and Tom Tom receipt Dt.

10.10.1976.

Ex.A6: Land revenue receipt Original for Sy.No.326, 266 and 324 in fasli 1386 Dt.05.02.1977.

Ex.A7: Plan showing the Plaint Schedule Property and other

Property.

Further PW1’s father Ch.Subbanni Rao executed registered will

dated 08.11.1979 in favour of PW1 marked as Ex.A8. Subsequently

she paid land revenue and marked the receipt as Ex.A9. Further to show that there are no encumbrances over the Suit Schedule Property, marked the Encumbrance certificate issued by S.R.O. Nandyal as

Ex.A10. Further on enquiry the revenue authorities mutated her name in the revenue records for the Suit Schedule Property and issued 4

Pattadhar Pass Book and title deed marked as Ex.A11 and A12. PW1 leased the Suit Schedule Property in favour of PW3 and PW3 raised jute in the schedule property and the grower’s cash memo issued by

National Seeds Corporation Ltd., marked as Ex.A13. Further PW1 to prove that 1st defendant damaged the jute crop marked 6 photographs as Ex.A14 and the receipt issued by Photographer as Ex.A15. Plaintiff to show that the suit survey numbers were allotted to Moolasagaram

Village filed the certificate issued by VRO marked as Ex.A17. Ex.A17 counter signed by the MRO, Nandyal marked as Ex.A18.

PW2 who is none other than the daughter of PW1 corroborated the version of PW1 in all aspects and further submitted that her mother

PW1 died on 16.11.2013 and marked Death Certificate as Ex.A21. She also marked the Death Certificate of husband of 1st plaintiff as Ex.A22.

PW2 deposed that her mother executed the registered will in favour of herself and her sister 2nd plaintiff and her brother 2nd defendant marked as Ex.A19. The affidavit obtained from XVI Metropolitan

Magistrate, Secunderabad marked as Ex.A20.

PW3 the lessee of 1st plaintiff also corroborated the version of

PW1 and 2 in all aspects and affirmed with the plaintiff stated that the 1st defendant trespassed into the Suit Schedule Property and caused damage to the jute crop and also threatened that he will not allow PW3 into the suit lands.

The defendant did not choose to cross examine PWs 1 to 3.

Furthermore Exs.A1 to A6 clearly established the title of the father of the deceased 1st plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Property, further the father of the 1st plaintiff bequeathed his entire property in favour of 1st plaintiff under a Registered Will marked as Ex.A8. In turn 1st plaintiff executed a registered will under Ex.A19 dated 02.03.1995 in favour of 2nd, 3rd plaintiffs and also in favour of 2nd defendant who are none other than her children. The Encumbrance Certificate filed by PW1 marked as Ex.A10 goes to show that there are no encumbrances over the Suit

Schedule Property and Schedule Property belongs to Chinna Subbanni

Rao alone. Further the revenue authorities after due enquiry mutated the name of deceased 1st plaintiff in the revenue records for the Suit

Schedule Property and issued Pattadhar Pass Book and title deed marked as Ex.A11 and A12. Thus the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 4 supported by Ex.A1 to A7 proves the title of the Chinna Subbani Rao over the Suit Schedule Property. Further Ex.A8, Ex.A10 and Ex.A19 supported by Ex.A1 to A7 shows the right and title and possession of the plaintiffs 2, 3 and 2nd defendant over the Suit Schedule Property.

The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 remained un-challenged and un-rebutted.

Though the 1st defendant filed his written statement and after his death his legal heirs are impleaded as D3 and D4 did not come forward either to cross examine PWs 1 to 3 or to put forth any cogent evidence on their behalf to prove that the Suit Schedule Property is their Ancestral property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same for more than 60 years as claimed by them in the written statement filed by the 1st defendant. Further the photographs under Ex.A14 with the support of oral evidence of PW3 proved that the 1st defendant trespassed into the suit lands and caused damage to the jute crop and

PW3 sustained loss. The plaintiffs by marking Exs.A1 to A22 proved their right and title over the Suit Schedule Property. Therefore there is nothing before this court to disbelieve the version of plaintiff. Hence the plaintiffs and 2nd defendant are entitled for declaration of their owner Ship over the Plaint Schedule Property, accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs and 2nd defendant and against the

D3 and D4.

15. Issue No.2

In view of my discussion and findings on Issue No.1 wherein it is held that the 1st plaintiff have got absolute right and title and owner ship over the Suit Schedule Property and the revenue authorities recognized their un-interrupted possession over the Suit Schedule

Property, got issued a Pattadhar Pass Book and title deed in favour of the 1st plaintiff for the Schedule Property and the 1st plaintiff executed a will under Ex.A19 in favour of the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant as such they are entitled for declaration of right and title and for consequential relief of Permanent Injunction over the Suit Schedule

Property against the defendants 3 and 4. Accordingly this issue is also answered in favour of the plaintiffs and 2nd defendant.

16. Issue No.3

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs declaring the right an title of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 to an extent of Ac.2.96 cents in Survey 4

No.266 and 2nd defendant right and title to an extent of AC.0.80 cents in Survey No.324 of the Suit Schedule Property and that the defendants 3 and 4 are here by restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and 2nd defendant over the

Suit Schedule Property by way of consequential Permanent Injunction. Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 28 th day of September, 2018.

II Additional Senior Civil Judge ,

Nandyal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witness examined)

For the Plaintiffs: For the Defendant:

P.W.1: P.Pullamma @ P.Pullamma Bai. Nil

P.W.2: Pathange Uma Maheswari

P.W.3: P.Madhusudan Rao

Exhibits marked for Plaintiff

Ex.A1: Sale Certificate issued in favour of Suthraye Chinna

Subbani Rao (father of Plaintiff).

Ex.A2: Dated 13.08.1976 Certified Copy of Delivery Petition filed by S.Subbanni Rao Dt.18.09.1976.

Ex.A3: Certified Copy of delivery warrant E.A.No.394/76 in

E.P.No.376/1975 in OS.No.458/75 on the file of the

Principal district Munsif Court, Nandyal dt.08.10.1976.

Ex.A4: Certified Copy of Ameen return Dt.11.10.1976.

Ex.A5: Certified Copy of delivery receipt and Tom Tom receipt Dt.

10.10.1976.

Ex.A6: Land revenue receipt Original in OS.No.326, 266 and 324 in fasli 1386 Dt.05.02.1977.

Ex.A7: Plan showing the Plaint Schedule Property and other

Property.

Ex.A8: Regd. Will executed by Suthraya Chinna Subbanni Rao in favour of plaintiff dt.08.11.1979.

4

Ex.A9: Land revenue receipt dt.07.04.1980.

Ex.A10: Encumbrance certificate issued by S.R.O Nandyal dt.10.07.2008. pertaining to the Plaintiff Schedule

Property.

Ex.A11: Pattadar Pass Book issued in favour of plaintiff revenue

Authorities.

Ex.A12: Title issued by revenue authorities in favour of plaintiff.

Ex.A13: Growers cash memo issued by National seeds corporation Ltd., in faour of Pathange Madhusudhan

Rao.

Ex.A14: Six digital photographs.

Ex.A15: Bill for photographs issued by Swathi Digitzal Photo studio, Nandyal in favour of Madhusudhan Rao.

Ex.A16: Dt.21.09.2008. Certified issued by V.R.O. Dt. 17.11.2008 about the division of the land survey numbers .

Ex.A17: Counter signed by M.R.O. Nandyal.

Ex.A18: Counter signed by M.R.O. Nandyal.

Ex.A19: Regd. Will dt.02.03.1995.

Ex.A20: Affidavit obtained from XVI Metropolitan Magistrate,

Secunderabad dt.10.07.2017.

Ex.A21: Death Certificate of 1st plaintiff dt.16.11.2013.

Ex.A22: Death certificate of husband of 1st plaintiff dt.12.01.20156 obtained through Meeseva.

Exhibits marked for Defendant

Nil

II Additional Senior Civil Judge ,

Nandyal.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE : NANDYAL :

Present: Sri M. Nageswara Rao,

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandyal.

Thursday, the 2nd day of May, 2019

SESSIONS CASE No.291/2017

State represented by: The Inspector of Police, Nandyal I Town Police Station. … Complainant - Versus -

1. Shaik Baba Fakruddin @ Chinnu, S/o.Hussain, aged 20 years, r/o.H.No.24/428 Z, Priyanka Nagar, Nandyal town, Kurnool District 2.Surisetty Sai Pavan Kumar @ Sai, S/o.S.Srinivasulu, aged 21 years, H.No.21/401 C3, Kota Street, Nandyal town, Kurnool District 3.Gillella Ravi Kumar, S/o.Venkatanna, aged 39 years, H.No.4-4A, Kuruva Street, Nandyal town, Kurnool District, now residing at H.No.45-142-31-O, Road No.1, Venkataramana Colony, Kurnool City 4.Balija Chimata Kiran Kumar @ Kiran Naidu, S/o.Rama Krishna, 28 years, r/o.D.No.59, Madhura Nagar, Sanjeevareddi Nagar, C/o.Serinivas Media Factory, near TV-5 Office, Jubileel Hills, Hyderabad. … Accused.

This case coming for final hearing before me on 30-04-2019 in the presence of

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri T.Thulasi Reddy, Sri M.V.Ramana,

and Sri B.K.Nagamalleswar, Advocates for Accused, and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Nandyal I Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused/A1 to A4, in Crime No.116/2016 of Nandyal I Town Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7(1) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, alleging that A1 to A4 are close associates and strong followers of one Abhiruchi

Madhu, a local Telugudesam Party leader and they are all high handed persons. A1 is an accused is double murder case vide Crime No.228/2014 of Nandyal II Town Police

Station and there is a rowdy sheet against him vide Rowdy Sheet No.96 of Nandyal

II-Town Police Station. A2 is an accused in robbery cases vide Crime Nos.61/2015 and 62/2015 of Bandi Atmakur Police Station and a Rowdy sheet No.522of Nandyal I Town

Station is opened against him. The defacto-complainant, Madireddi Linga Murthy 2

Reddy, is a native of D.Kottala village of Rudravaram mandal, Kurnool district and now residing in NGO’s Colony, Nandyal.

It is further alleged in the charge-sheet that on 04-07-2016 in the morning, the defacto-complainant/Madireddy Lingamurthy Reddy, and his father, Madireddy

Ramalinga Reddy (LW3) went into Nandyal Town on some work, on their motor cycle bearing No.AP21-AV-3473. After completing their work, they were returning to their house situated in NGO’s Colony on the same motor cycle. The defacto-complainant was riding the motor cycle, while his father was sitting as a pillion rider. At about 12-30 Hours when they reached near Shobha Lodge, there was heavy traffic and the defacto-complainant was riding the motor cycle slowly and stopped it on the left margin. At that time, the car in which A1 to A4 were going towards NGO’s Colony, came at the back of the motor cycle of the defacto-complainant and the driver of the car blew horn and stopped at the back side of the motor cycle. One of the accused shouted at the defacto-complainant to move from there, by using abusive words. When the defacto-complainant/Madireddy Lingamurthy Reddy (LW1), Soma Siva Prasad (LW2) and Madireddy Ramalinga Reddy (LW3) asked the accused as to why they were using abusive words, all the accused uttered that they would hit the motor cycle with the car and kill them. A1 to A4 then got down from the car, formed into unlawful assembly and caught hold of the shirt of Madireddy Lingamurthy Reddy (LW1) questioning as to whether he knows who they are. When Madireddy Ramalinga Reddy (LW3) tried to rescue him, the accused pushed him aside and beat Madireddy

Lingamurthi Reddy (LW1) indiscriminately with hands and legs and attempted to kill him. A1 beat Madireddy Lingamurthi Reddy (LW1) with a leather belt and tied the belt around his neck and attempted to kill him. In the meanwhile, Soma Siva Prasad (LW2) and others tried to rescue Madireddy Lingamurthi Reddy (LW1) from the accused, but they could not do so because of the highhandedness and fear of the accused. After causing multiple injuries to Madireddy Lingamurthi Reddy (LW1), when the crowd gathered at the scene, all the accused got into the car and went way from the place.

The incident was recorded by someone on mobile phone and kept in social media. On the same day at 19-30 Hours, Madireddy Lingamurthi Reddy (LW1) and Madireddy 3

Ramalinga Reddy (LW3) went to Nandyal I-Town Police Station and preferred complaint against the accused.

On the strength of the complaint of Madireddy Lingamurthi Reddy (LW1), the

Inspector of Police, Nandyal I-Town Police Station registered the case in Crime

No.116/2016 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, l324, 307, 341 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 7(1) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and investigated into the case.

On 04-07-2016, the Inspector of Police seized the compact disc containing the visuals and T-Shirt of Madireddy Lingamurthi Reddy (LW1) which he wore at the time of occurrence, when produced by him, under cover of police proceedings. During the course of investigation, the Inspector of Police arrested A1 on 08-10-2016, A2 on 23-08-2016, A3 on 06-10-2016 and A4 on 14-08-2016 and forwarded them to the Court for remand.

The Medical Officer who treated Madireddy Lingamurthi Reddy (LW1), issued would certificate opining that the injuries sustained by him, are simple in nature.

After receipt of wound certificate and after completion of investigation, the

Inspector of Police filed charge-sheet before the Court against A1 to A4.

2.On appearance of the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate of

first Class, Nandyal, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Kurnool, vide

orders dated 10-01-2017 in PRC.No.54 of 2016. The learned Principal District &

Sessions Judge, Kurnool took the case on file against A1 to A4 for the offences

punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324,307 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and made over the same to this Court for trial and disposal according to law.

3.After appearance of A1 to A4 before this Court and after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel and after perusing the record, charges under Sections 148, 341, 323 read with 149 IPC against

A1 to A4, under Section 307 IPC against A1 and under Section 307 read with 149 IPC 4 against A2 to A4, were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to

P12 and MOs.1 and 2 were marked.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 323 read with 149 IPC; against A1 under Section 307 IPC and against A2 to A4 under Section 307 read with 149 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?”

7.Heard both sides.

8.POINT:

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on 04-07-2016

Pws.1 and 3 went to Nandyal town on their motor cycle and after completing their work, both of them were returning to their house situated at NGO’s Colony, Nandyal on the same motor cycle and when they reached Shobha Lodge at about 12-30 p.m., there was heavy traffic and that PW1 who was riding the motor cycle slowly, stopped the motor cycle on the left side of the road margin, at that time the car in which A1 to

A4 were going towards NGO Colony, came back to the motor cycle of PW1 and the driver of the car blew horn and stopped at the tack side of the motor cycle and shouted at PW1 to move from there and used abusive language. When PW1 and PW3 asked the accused as to why they are using abusive words, for which the accused/A1 to A4 got down from the car, picked up quarrel with PW1 and PW3 and abused them in filthy language, A1 beat PW1 with a leather belt and tied the belt around the neck of PW1 and attempted to kill him. PW3 who is the father of PW1, tried to come to the rescue of PW1, but the accused pushed him aside. All the accused beat PW1 with their hands and legs indiscriminately and caused injuries to PW1. The accused while beating PW1, 5 the incident was recorded by some one on the mobile phone and kept in social media.

Thereafter, basing on the complaint given by PW1, the police registered this case against the accused. PW1 who is the injured/complainant, deposed that he received injury due to fall on the road due to skid of the motor cycle. PW1 did not state that the accused beat him and caused injuries to him. PW3 also stated on the same lines of

PW1and he did not support the case of prosecution. But, the evidence of the doctor and investigating officer, is very clear that the accused beat PW1 and PW1 took treatment for the injuries sustained in the accident. The injured and other eye witnesses also not denied that PW1 received injuries and took treatment. Therefore, the accused may be convicted.

9.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused are innocent and they did not commit any offence, much less, alleged by the prosecution.

The accused are nothing to do with the alleged incident. The accused do not know

PW1 and PW3. PW1 who is the injured/complainant, clearly deposed that he received injuries due to falling on the road as he lost control over the two-wheeler. PW3 who is the pillion rider of motor cycle, also stated that PW1 received injuries due to fall on the road. Other eye witnesses examined by the prosecution, also not supported the case of prosecution. PWs.1 to 7 not supported the case of prosecution. Hence, there is no evidence against the accused for the charges framed against them and hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

10.This is a case of rioting followed by wrongfully restraining a person, beating and attempting to murder, that occurred on 04-07-2016 at about 12-30 p.m. on

Nandyal – Noonepalli road near Shobha lodge in Nandyal town, wherein A1 to A4 who are the followers of Abhiruchi Madhu of Nandyal town, were going in a car, when they reached near Shobha Lodge, where they stopped their car behind the motor cycle of

PW1 and the driver of the car blew horn and abused PW1 and PW3 to move from there and also they picked up quarrel with PW1 and when PW1 asked the accused as to why they were abusing them, for which all the accused got down from the car and picked up quarrel with PWs.1 and 3; A1 beat PW1 with a belt and also tied the belt around the 6 neck of PW1 in order to kill him. When PW3 tried to interfere, the accused pushed him aside. All the accused beat PW1 with their hands and legs indiscriminately and caused injuries to him. Meanwhile, the neighbours of the scene of offence, rushed and pacified the issue. Later, PW1 gave complaint to the police.

11.In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined as many

as 9 witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 and MOs.1 and 2. PW1 who is the

injured/complainant in this case, deposed on oath before the Court that on 04-07-2016 at about 10-30 a.m while he was proceeding on his motor cycle, when he reached

Shobha Lodge, there he observed a mob and on seeing them, he lost control over the vehicle and fell on the road and sustained bleeding injury on his left side neck and left side face, thereafter he was shifted to the hospital and took treatment. PW1 further deposed in his chief examination itself that while he was in the hospital, police came to the hospital and obtained his signature in a white paper and he do not know what was written above his signature. Whereas, the case of the prosecution is that on the date of incident, A1 to A4 picked up quarrel with PW1 and A1 beat PW1 with a belt on his face and all over the body and caused injuries to PW1. Whereas, PW1 who is the injured/defacto-complainant, clearly deposed before the Court that at the time of recording evidence, that he received injury due to fall on the road from his motor cycle. The evidence of PW1 is very clear that he received injuries due to fall on the road from motor cycle as he lost control over the motor cycle. PW1 did not state that the accused beat him and caused injuries to him. PW1 did not state anything about the alleged incident that occurred at about 12-30 p.m near Shobha Lodge, Nandyal. PW1 completely deposed contra version to his earlier statement. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is very clear that the accused are nothing to do with the alleged offence.

12.As per the case of the prosecution, at the time of incident, PW3 who is the father of PW1, witnessed the entire incident and rescued PW1 from the hands of the accused, but PW3 deposed on oath before the Court at the time of recording his evidence, that he do not know anything about the case facts. PW3 further deposed in his chief examination itself that PW1 received injuries due to fall on the road from the 7 motorcycle. Therefore, the evidence is PW3 is also no way helpful to the case of prosecution.

13.PWs.1 and 3 who are the injured and direct eye-witness respectively, turned hostile. They did not support the case of prosecution. In this case, it is to be noted that PW1 is a software engineer and a young boy and he deposed contra to his earlier statements. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 itself is sufficient to hold that the accused are nothing to do with the offence. PW2, PWs.4 to 7 who are cited as independent witnesses, they also not supported the case of prosecution and all of them stated that they did not know anything about the facts and they never observed any incident at Shobha Lodge. Therefore, there is no evidence against the accused for the charges framed against them.

14.It is the argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that considering the medical evidence, investigating officer’s evidence and wound certificate, the accused may be convicted. It is well established law that without evidence of injured witnesses and eye witnesses, the testimony of investigating officer and the medical evidence, cannot be basis to convict the accused. The injured witness clearly and categorically deposed before the Court that he sustained injuries due to fall on the road as he lost control over the motor cycle. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is very clear that he himself fell on the road from the motor cycle and received injuries found in Ex.P8/wound certificate. It is not the case of injured that the accused beat him and caused injuries. The other independent witnesses also did not support the case of the prosecution. On perusal of entire evidence and on hearing the arguments of both sides, it appears that the matter was settled out of Court and that is why the injured and other witnesses turned hostile.

15.The investigating officer deposed that he seized MO1-blood stained

T-Shirt of PW1 and a C.D in respect of the alleged incident, from the possession of PW1 at the time of recording his statement. Whereas, PW1 did not stated anything about

Mos.1 and 2. Even PW1 failed to identify his T-Shirt. It is the argument of defence 8 counsel that Mos.1 and 2 were planted for the purpose of the case. If really MOs.1 and 2 were seized from PW1 at the time of recording his statement, atleast PW1 would have identified his T-Shirt. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove that MO1/T-Shirt belongs to PW1 and MO2/C.D in which the incident was recorded by someone. Since this is a case for the offences of rioting, wrongful restraint, causing simple injuries and attempting to murder, it is for the prosecution to establish the same by leading cogent and admissible evidence. None of the witnesses stated that the accused caused injuries to PW1. Therefore, it is held that there is absolutely no evidence to proceed against the accused for the charges framed against them. Hence, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

This point is accordingly answered.

16.In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty of the offences under Sections 148, 341, 323 read with 149 IPC, A1 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC, A2 to A4 are found not guilty of the offence under section 307 read with 149

IPC; and they are acquitted of the said offences, under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall be in force for six months in view of the Proviso under

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Mos.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 2nd day of May, 2019.

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Nandyal.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1: M.Lingamurthy Reddy NONE PW.2: Soma Siva Prasad PW.3: Madireddy Ramalinga Reddy PW.4: D.Pedda Narasimhudu PW.5: Arangula Satyam PW.6: M.Mahaboob Basha PW.7: P.Venugopal PW.8: Dr.K.Jayamma, Civil Assistant Surgeon PW.9: R.Prathap Reddy, Inspector of Police 9

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 in the report dated 04-07-2016 -Nil- Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P6: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P7: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7 Ex.P8: Wound Certificate Ex.P9: Report of PW1, dated 04-07-2016 Ex.P10: F.I.R. Ex.P11: Police Proceedings Ex.P12: Rough Sketch

Material Objects Marked

MO1: Torn T-Shirt MO2: Compact disc.

P.A.S.J., NDL.