Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rayachoty vs State Of Bihar on 4 August, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO
APPEAL SUIT No.291 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment dated 28.02.2013 in O.S.No.26 of 2008 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty, (for short "the trial Court"), the appellants/plaintiffs preferred this appeal questioning the correctness of the Decree and Judgment passed by the Trial Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the Original Suit.
3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for compensation of Rs.12,19,200/- in respect of amounts pertaining to suit lands lying in the deposit of the 2nd defendant and also for grant of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from paying the said compensation amount of Rs.12,19,200/- to the defendants 6 and 7 or to their agents and to pay the said amount in respect of the suit schedule lands.
4. The brief averments, of the plaintiffs, are that, the plaintiffs 1 to 5 belong to Sugali Community. One Mude Hame Naik, who is the great, great, great maternal grand-father of the plaintiffs. The suit schedule property is the patta land of Mude Hame Naik. Upon his death, the property was inherited by his two sons i.e., Mude Bode Naik and Mude Gopal Naik, who jointly enjoyed the land. Mude Bode Naik, having no children, executed a Will on 20.11.1954 bequeathing his undivided half 2 TMR,J A.S.No.291 of 2015 share in the suit schedule property to his brother Gopal Naik's son, Mude Rama Naik, reserving the right of enjoyment during his life time and his wife Lakshumma's life time. After the demise of Bode Naik and his wife in 1978 and 1980 respectively, the Will dated 20.11.1954 came into effect. Consequently, as per Hindu Succession Act (Section 8 and Schedule 11), Gopal Naik inherited his brother's half share in 1980. Gopal Naik passed away in the year 1982 leaving the entire suit schedule property to his only son Mude Rama Naik. Thus, Rama Naik became absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
(a) It is further stated that M. Rama Naik was married and had three sons namely M. Tirupal Naik (1st plaintiff), Mude Venkata Ramana Naik (second plaintiff) and Mude Krishna Naik (who passed away in the year 2003) leaving his wife Mangamma (third plaintiff) and their two sons namely Mude Ashok Kumar and Mude Ramesh Naik, 4th and 5th plaintiff respectively. Upon Rama Naik's demise in the year 1995, the suit schedule property was inherited by his three sons and their legal representatives.
Thus, the plaintiffs 1 to 5 became the absolute owners of the suit schedule property. The suit lands have been standing in the name of plaintiff's great grand-father Mude Bode Naik. The Deputy Tahsildar of Lakkireddypalli issued a Ryot passbook in the name of Mude Bode Naik, the plaintiff's grand-father. The plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit schedule lands for many years, cultivating crops like Kandi, Jonna, Groundnuts, bajra etc., up to 2006.
3
TMR,J A.S.No.291 of 2015
(b) While the matters stood thus, the plaintiffs came to know that three months before initiating the suit, the Government of Andhra Pradesh had acquired the lands for Veligallu Project. One Chinna Reddy, 5th defendant who happens to be the husband of 4th defendant, is cunning and crooked person, making false revenue records in the name of third parties including his wife pertaining to the lands that acquired for Veligallu project for the purpose of claiming compensation from the 2nd defendant by playing fraud on the real title holders of the said lands. The 5th defendant created records in the names of 6th and 7th defendants regarding the suit schedule property to deprive the plaintiffs from getting the compensation from the government. The 2nd defendant failed to issue notice under Section 9 and 10 of Land Acquisition Act, to the plaintiffs for the suit land. Moreover, there was no enquiry conducted as per Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act. The defendants 2 to 5 are making efforts to pay compensation to defendants 6 and 7 by playing fraud on the plaintiffs. Despite sending notice under Section 80 of C.P.C., to the defendants 1 to 3 on 05.11.2007, no response was provided by them.
5. The defendants 4 and 5 remained ex parte.
6. The defendants 1 and 3 adopted the written statement, filed by the 2nd defendant. The defendants contended that the suit schedule properties as per Revenue Settlement Register (for short 'R.S.R') are classified as waste lands belonging to the government and no D.K.T. pattas were granted to any ryots. Originally, these lands were referred to as G.V. (Gayyalu) comprising Ac.615-47 in S.No.382 of the river poramboke. Subsequently, 4 TMR,J A.S.No.291 of 2015 some ryots from the Sugali community started cultivating these lands without any official assignment; survey numbers were assigned to the lands and the revenue department used to issue Cist Receipts to the ryots only to show that they are in possession of certain lands in the assessed waste land, even though they had no legal title to the assessed waste lands. The plaintiffs have to strictly prove that Mude Hame Naik was the original pattadar for the entire suit schedule land and that they legally inherited it. The defendants refute the allegation of collusion between 2nd defendant and defendants 4 and 5 to provide compensation to other ryots who are not entitled to receive such amounts as claimed by the plaintiffs.
7. The defendants 6 and 7 filed their written statement refuting the claim made by the plaintiffs. They assert that their ancestors had been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the land i.e. Ac.2.30 cents in Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. The government already acknowledged their entitlement to compensation for this extent of the land. The revenue records No.3-Account, Cist Receipts would abundantly prove the enjoyment of the defendants for the above mentioned extent. The plaintiffs have fabricated the documents specifically an Unregistered Will dated 20.11.1952 supposedly executed by Bode Naik. The lands in question were initially assessed as waste lands of the government and the persons belonging to Sugali Community began to cultivate the land without any pattas granted by the government since more than 80 years. The ancestors of defendants 6 and 7 took possession of certain extents of land and cultivated them rightfully. The government has been lenient towards 5 TMR,J A.S.No.291 of 2015 the poverty stricken Sugali community, not evicting them from the lands they occupied and cultivated it.
8. Based on the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues, which are as under:-
1) Whether the suit lands are patta lands and that the patta stands in the name of Hame Naik as pleaded by the plaintiffs?
2) Whether the suit lands are assessed waste lands of government and no DKT was granted to anybody as pleaded by the defendant Nos.6 and 7?
3) Whether the Unregistered Will Deed dated 20.11.1954 said to have been executed by one Bode Naik is true, valid and binding on the defendants?
4) Whether the 3rd plaintiff is not the wife of Deepla Naik as pleaded by the defendant Nos.6 and 7?
5) Whether the suit is not maintainable without a prayer for declaration of the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule lands?
6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as prayed for?
7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction against defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 as prayed for?
8) To what relief?
9. On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 alone was examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 and on behalf of the defendant Nos.6 and 7, D.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B41. On behalf of the defendants 1 to 3, D.W.2 was examined and no documents were marked.
10. After considering the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit without costs.
11. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties. 6
TMR,J A.S.No.291 of 2015
12. Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs contends that the trial Court overlooked crucial evidence, made incorrect assessment and failed to analyze Exs.B1 to B41 individually, as doing so, could have exposed the falsity and the fabrication of records by the defendants. The appellants have effectively proven their title and possession through Exs.A8 and A9. He further contends that Ex.A10 i.e., Original Will dated 20.11.1954 holds significance as it is executed more than 50 years. The trial Court erroneously linked Exs.A6 and A7 (Adangal and Passbook) solely to Ex.A5 [10(1) Account]; these documents independently prove the plaintiffs title and possession over the suit schedule property. The trial Court should have drawn adverse inference from the defendants failure to issue a reply notice in response to the legal notice (Ex.A2); the defendants had not produced RSR and other relevant revenue records to support their claim that the land belong to Government or defendants 6 and 7.
13. Per contra, Learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/defendants would contend that the trial Court correctly appreciated the facts of the case and reached a correct conclusion. The reasons given by the trial Court do not require any modifications.
14. Having regard to the pleadings in the suit, the findings recorded by the Trial Court and in the light of the rival contentions and submissions made on either side before this Court, the points would arose for determination are:
7
TMR,J A.S.No.291 of 2015
1) Whether the suit is not maintainable as prayed for declaration of title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule properties?
2) Whether the suit lands are patta lands and patta stands in the name of Hame Naik as pleaded by the plaintiffs?
3) Whether the Unregistered Will dated 20.11.1954 said to have been executed by the Bode Naik is true, valid and binding on the defendants?
4) Whether the suit lands are assessed waste lands of the Government and no D.K.T. pattas were granted to anybody, as pleaded by defendants 6 and 7?
5) Whether the decree and judgment of the trial Court needs any interference?
POINT NO.3:
15. The plaintiffs claimed the title and possession basing on Ex.A10- unregistered Will dated 20.11.1954. The defendants disputed the genuineness and authenticity of the Will and furthermore they contend that the schedule properties were not belonging to Mude Bode Naik. In view of the stand taken by the plaintiffs the burden is on the plaintiffs to establish the Will. As rightly observed by the trial Court that neither the scribe nor the attestors were examined to prove Ex.A10-Will, therefore, the Will is not proved in accordance with Ex.A10-Will. None examined to identify the signatures of attestors or scribe of Ex.A10-Will. Therefore, as rightly observed by the trial Court that the plaintiffs failed to prove that Mude Bode Naik executed an Unregistered Will on 20.11.1954 and the said Will is true, valid and binding on the defendants. Accordingly, the Point No.3 is answered in favour of the defendants.
8
TMR,J A.S.No.291 of 2015 POINT NOs.2 & 4:
16. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that one Hame Naik is an ancestor of the plaintiffs and he is the Patta Holder of the suit lands and the same has been inherited by the plaintiffs. It is the contention of the defendants that the suit lands are Government lands and no D.K.T. Pattas were granted in anybody's favour, much less in Hame Naik and the Exs.A5 to A9 and Ex.A10 documents are created one. According to the 1st plaintiff as P.W.1 that one Hame Naik had two sons namely Mude Bode Naik and Mude Gopal Naik. After the death of Hame Naik, his sons are enjoying the properties. Mude Bode Naik had no issues and he executed a Will on 20.11.1954 in favour of Mude Rama Naik i.e. the son of Mude Gopal Naik. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Mude Bode Naik died in the year 1978 and his wife Lakshumma died in the year 1980 and so the plaintiffs succeeded the properties.
17. In support of the defendants' case, the 6th defendant was examined as D.W.1-B. Tulasi Naik, and the Tahsildar was examined as D.W.2- M. Subrahmanyam. According to the evidence of D.W.1 that the schedule property lands are assessed Government Waste and the Government never granted D.K.T. pattas infavour of anybody. Whereas, D.W.2 stated in his evidence that as per R.S.R. the suit properties are assessed waste lands of Government and no D.K.T. pattas are granted to any ryots and as per the revenue records, 13 people i.e. B. Tulase Naik, B. Seke Naik, B. Sonikamma, B. Ramla Naik, M. Narasimhulu Naik, B. Mange Naik, B. Seetharam Naik, B. Dhare Naik, B. Deepla Naik, B. Lakshmamma, M. Venkatramana Naik and 9 TMR,J A.S.No.291 of 2015 B. Somla Naik are the enjoyers in the suit survey numbers, total extent of Ac.20.32 cents, since they have no title over the suit lands as the Government acquired the lands, they are entitled for ex-gratia.
18. As mentioned earlier, the plaintiffs claimed title to the suit lands basing on Ex.A10-Will. The plaintiffs heavily relied on Ex.A5 a Certified Copy of 10(1) account supposedly issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Galiveedu Mandal on 13.09.1980. It shows that an extent of Ac.9.94 cents stood in the name of sons of Hame Naik. The defendants specifically contested the authenticity of Ex.A.5 stating that it was a bogus document, created for the purpose of suit. D.W.2's evidence reveals that Mandal system came into existence in 1985, but Ex.A5 claimed to have been issued in 1980 which raised doubt its legitimacy. The evidence of D.W.2 regarding introduction of Mandal system in 1985 is not disputed. Ex.A5 contained the round seal and signature of Mandal Revenue Officer and bore the dates 11.09.1980 and 13.09.1980 respectively. The fact that the Mandal system was introduced in 1985 created a discrepancy that the plaintiffs needed to address. The trial Court rightly observed that Ex.A5 creates a doubt and the most plausible inference that could be drawn was that Ex.A5 was a forged document created for the purpose of suit.
19. As seen from the record, the plaintiffs also relied on Exs.A6 and A7 i.e. Adangal and Pattadar Passbook issued in the year 1980 along with Exs.A8 and A9 are the Certified Copies of records of holdings and Encumbrance Certificate for the said lands. The defendants 6 and 9 contends that they along with others were in possession and enjoyment of 10 TMR,J A.S.No.291 of 2015 the suit lands and that the Government had acquired the lands for Veligallu Project. D.W.2 furnished the names of the persons who occupied the suit lands. In support of their case, D.Ws.1 and 2 relied on Exs.B1 to B41 documents. These included Pattadar Passbooks and Title Deeds of defendants 6 and 7 (Exs.B1 to B4); cist receipts (Exs.B5 and B6); receipt showing the amount collected for pattadar passbook and title deed in favour of D.7 (Ex.B.7); land acquisition compensation report dated 10.02.2006 (Ex.B.8); land possession details (Ex.B.9); copy of 1-B entries (Ex.B.10); copies of File Numbers (Exs.B11 to B16); Pattadar Passbooks of 11 ryots including defendants 6 and 7 (Exs.B17 to B27); No.3 Adangals to different faslies showing the suit lands standing in the name of 7th defendant and others (Exs.B28 to B34); No.3 Adangals showing the suit lands standing in the name of V. Ramachandra Reddy and others (Exs.B35 and B36); No.3 Adangals showing the suit lands standing in the name of one V.Adinarayana Reddy and others, with defendants 6 and 7 having specific extents land (Exs.B37 to B39) and No.3 Adangals showing the suit lands standing in the name of M.Tirupal Naik and others, with defendants 6 and 7 having specific extents of land (Exs.B40 and B41). It is evident that the defendants produced substantial evidence to support their claim of possession.
20. Based on the documentary evidence, specifically Exs.B1 to B41, the trial Court observed that Defendants 6 and 7 and others were in possession and enjoyment of the lands, while the plaintiffs were not in possession. These documents indicated that the suit lands are classified as waste lands and no D.K.T. Pattas were granted for these lands. The absence of D.K.T 11 TMR,J A.S.No.291 of 2015 Pattas and the classification of lands as assessed waste lands weakened the plaintiffs' case regarding their claim. After the evaluation of the evidence on record, the trial Court observed that plaintiffs claim lacked merit and the 6th and 7th defendants' possession and enjoyment of the land duly supported by the documents.
21. The plaintiffs relied on Exs.A6 and A7 i.e. Adangal and Passbook issued in the year 1980 to support their claim of title and possession. However, the trial Court rightly observed that these documents were based on Ex.A5 which was found to be a fabricated document. The Government in its defence placed Exs.B1 to B41 documents to contend that suit lands were classified as assessed waste lands of Government and no D.K.T. Pattas were granted. According to the said documents, the defendants 6 and 7 and 11 others were in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands. Based on the voluminous records placed by the Government, this Court views that much weight cannot be attached to Exs.A6 and A7, more particularly, for the reason that Ex.A5 is a fabricated document. Given the established fabrication of Ex.A.5, the burden was on the plaintiffs to establish the authenticity and genuineness of Exs.A6 and A7. However, the plaintiffs failed to examine the concerned Revenue Officials, who issued Exs.A6 and A7. On the other hand, the DW.2's evidence along with Exs.B1 to B41 supported the defendants' contention that no D.K.T. Pattas were granted to anyone.
22. Upon reviewing the documents placed by the defendants, it becomes evident that the plaintiffs created Ex.A5 and other documents with the 12 TMR,J A.S.No.291 of 2015 intention of obtaining compensation from the suit lands. This supports the Government's contention that the suit properties are not Patta lands of Hame Naik, instead the suit lands were in possession and enjoyment of defendants 6 and 7 and 11 others and they were the enjoyers of Ac.20.32 cents in the suit schedule survey numbers though they had no title over the suit lands. As the government acquired the land and they are entitled to ex- gratia compensation. This ex-gratia is to be given even in the absence of formal ownership rights.
23. In the said facts of the case, the Sub-Collector, Veligallu Project approved Rs.7,86,994/-. The material on record suggests to get ex-gratia amount, the plaintiffs created Exs.A5 and A10 documents. After careful analysis of the material on record, this Court views that the trial Court came to a correct conclusion and answered the issues in favour of the defendants. Accordingly, the points are answered.
POINT NO.1:
24. The plaintiffs have filed the suit to declare that they are entitled for declaration to receive compensation amount of Rs.12,19,200/- from the defendants. The trial Court observed that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their title to the suit lands, their possession and enjoyment of the same and their entitlement to receive the compensation for the suit property that was acquired by the government. But, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking to declare their right to receive compensation. This Court opines that if the plaintiffs can successfully establish that the suit lands are indeed patta lands, with the patta registered in the name of Hame 13 TMR,J A.S.No.291 of 2015 Naik and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the properties, there might be no need for a suit to declare their title to the suit schedule properties, instead, a suit specifically claiming the compensation might be more appropriate, given that the plaintiffs right to compensation hinges on the ownership and possession of the acquired lands. In such a scenario, the plaintiffs claim for compensation would be maintainable.
25. A decision reported in Dr.G.H. Grant vs. State of Bihar1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
"19. xxxx The Collector is not authorised to decide finally the conflicting rights of the persons interested in the amount of compensation : he is primarily concerned with the acquisition of the land. In determining the amount of compensation which may be offered, he has, it is true, to apportion the amount of compensation between the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have appeared before him. But the scheme of apportionment by the Collector does not finally determine the rights of the persons interested to the amount of compensation : the award is only conclusive between the Collector and the persons interested and not among the persons interested. The Collector has no power to finally adjudicate upon the title to compensation : that dispute has to be decided either in a reference under Section 18 or under Section 30 or in a separate suit. Payment of compensation therefore under Section 31 to the person declared by the award to be entitled thereto discharges the State or its liability to pay compensation (Subject to any modification by the Court), leaving it open to the claimant to compensation to agitate his right in a reference under Section 30 or by a separate suit."
26. In a decision reported in Shyam Lal and Ors. Vs. Sham Lal and Ors.2, wherein the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed as under:
"11. Earlier, another Division Bench of this Court in Kamail Singh v. Jagir Singh, 1985 RRR 645 : AIR 1984 Punjab and Haryana 294, has held that 1 1966 AIR 237 2 2007 SCC Online P&H 156 14 TMR,J A.S.No.291 of 2015 the suit for recovery of the compensation amount is maintainable as the award is final so far as the Collector and the persons interested, as defined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are concerned, but not so among the persons interested in the Land. It was held to the following effect:
"From the above observations, it is clear that the award is final so far as the Collector and the persons interested are concerned, but it is not so among the persons interested in the land. The persons interested can get their dispute resolved either by asking the Collector to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act or by a separate suit. The same view had been expressed earlier in Hemanta Kumar Banerjee v. Satish Chandra Banerjee, AIR 1941 Cal 635; Hitkarini Sabha v. Jabalpur Corporation, AIR 1958 Madh Pra 339 and Shri Deo Sansthan Chinchwad v. Chintaman Dharnidhar Deo, AIR 1962 Bombay 214. Similar matter came up before me while sitting in single Bench in Jog Raj v. Banarsi Dass, (1978) 80 Pun LR 258 : (AIR 1978 Punj & Har 189). I also took the same view and held that a suit is maintainable for recovery of an amount under proviso to Section 31(2) of the Act."
12. In view of the aforesaid judgments, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the Courts below that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit, is not sustainable in law. The award announced by the Collector in respect of acquisition of the land is conclusive as between the persons interested and the Collector in respect of the amount of compensation. But the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the dispute regarding entitlement of the said amount of compensation is not barred."
27. In light of settled legal position, this Court holds that though the suit as claimed by the plaintiffs is maintainable, however, due to the plaintiffs' failure to establish their possession over the suit schedule properties, they are not entitled to any compensation/ex-gratia as claimed in the suit. Accordingly, the point is answered.
POINT NO.5:
28. Based on the preceding discussion and considering the evidence on record and well established legal principles, it is evident that the 15 TMR,J A.S.No.291 of 2015 findings and observations of the trial court are well founded. The view taken by the trial court does not call for any interference. This Appeal, therefore fails. The impugned Judgment passed by the trial court is upheld. Accordingly, the point is answered.
29. In the result, the Appeal is hereby dismissed without costs by confirming the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.26 of 2008, dated 28.02.2013 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO Dt. 04.08.2023 MS 16 TMR,J A.S.No.291 of 2015 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.291 OF 2015 DATE: 04.08.2023 MS