Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5 GSD, J ccca_22_1999

5. The Special Grade Deputy Collector filed a Written Statement on 19.09.1981 on behalf of defendant No.1 and 2. It is contended that the Suit is filed only by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 alone and the third partner Saroja Devi has not been included as plaintiff, who, as per the plaint averments, had purchased the land bearing Sy.No.129/73 of Shaikpet Village, as such the Suit is bad for Non-Joinder of proper and necessary party. The plaintiffs have mentioned about partnership but they have not chosen to indicate whether there exists any co-ownership of the land in between the partners of the plaintiff firm. The plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as partners of the firm, cannot sue the Government without their co-ownership of the land. The total area of Sy.No.129/56 is Ac.8-12 gts. and not Ac.3-12 gts. The Sy.No.129/56 still stands in the name of one Riaz Ahmed and the defendants have no knowledge whether Raja Dharam Karan had purchased it. The defendants have no knowledge if there are any records to show the purchase of the portion of the said land admeasuring Ac.2-10 gts. by the plaintiff No.2 from the heirs of Late Raja Dharam Karan and also no record as to in which portion out of Ac.8-12 gts, the plaintiffs purchased. The names of heirs of late Raja Dharam Karan have also not been mentioned. These averments are denied for want of knowledge. The land in Sy.No.129/73 is admeasuring Ac.11-10 gts. but in the name of Rani Jayanti Devi Ac.8-10 gts. in Sy.No.129/73/A, in the name of Leela Devi Ac.1-00 gts. in Sy.No.129/73/B, in the name of Rama Devi Ac. 1-00 gts. in Sy.No.129/73/C and in the name of Dr.Sheela Devi Ac.1-00 gts. in Sy.No.129/73/D. As such it is denied that the entire area was held by Rani Jayanthi Devi. The defendants are not aware of the purchase of Ac.5-38 Gts. on 6 GSD, J ccca_22_1999 03.09.1964 by Saroja Devi as such denied for want of knowledge. The plaintiffs have suppressed the fact from the Court that in between land in Sy.No.129/56 and Sy.No.129/73 of Shaikpet Village purported to have been purchased by plaintiff No.2 and Saroja Devi, a portion of land bearing Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet Village which is classified as Government Paramboke land is situated. It is totally false to state that the alleged suit land admeasuring Ac.2-10 gts. is part and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.129/56 whereas it is actually a Government land owned and possessed by the Government and its Sy.No.403. The plaintiffs themselves in the year 1976 and 1978 have admitted that a piece of land admeasuring Ac.2.00 is lying in between Sy.No.129/56 and Sy.No.129/73 belongs to the Government and in fact requested for allotment of the said land for extension of studios, at the market rate. The suit land is part and parcel of Sy.No.403 of Shaikpet Village which is classified as Government Paramboke land measuring Ac.2.967-28 gts. As per plaint averments in para 2, Saroja Devi purchased Ac.5-38 gts. in Sy.No.129/73 and plaintiff No.2 purchased Ac.2-10 gts. in Sy.No.129/56 i.e., totally admeasuring Ac.8-08 gts. but whereas as per plaint averments at para 4, the plaintiff No.1 is in possession of about Ac.7.00 and plaintiff No.2 is in possession of 3000 Sq.Yds which is retained for himself i.e., total admeasuring Ac.7-16 gts. 64 Sq.Yds. This shows as to whether the actual extent of their land is Ac.8-08 gts. or Ac.7- 16 gts. 64 Sq.Yds. The allegation of adverse possession is totally denied. The plaintiffs with an intention to grab a portion of valuable Government land bearing Sy.No.403 situated in between the patta lands of Sy.No.129/56 and Sy.No.129/73, had been 7 GSD, J ccca_22_1999 attempting to encroach upon the Government land and as such they were prevented from doing so. The ex parte Injunction Orders obtained by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.61 of 1981 on the file of the Vacation Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad which were contested and the Court ordered suspension of the ex parte injunction until further orders with a direction that the plaintiff should not interfere in the possession of the defendants and the defendants also should not interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have failed therein and filed the present suit for the same relief and as such present suit is bad in law. Obtaining permission from Municipal Corporation regarding construction does not convey any right, interest or title to the plaintiffs. The attempt of unauthorized constructions by the plaintiffs on the portion of the Government land bearing Sy.No.403 situated in between Sy.No.129/56 and Sy.No.129/73 was prevented and not on the patta lands of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have applied to the defendant for allotment of suit land which is a Government land on market value and subsequently with an intention to grab the Government land represented that the said land is part of their already purchased land and that these pleas were not accepted. Letter was issued for production of documents to examine the genuineness of documents which does not amount to admission of his claim over the suit land which is a Government land. In fact in L.Dis.No.F1/12332/78 dated 24.11.1978, the request for allotment was rejected and intimated to the General Manager of plaintiff no.1. No Notice U/s.80 of C.P.C. was issued by the plaintiffs. As per Section 14 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to 8 GSD, J ccca_22_1999 adjudicate the suit of a Government land. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

72 GSD, J ccca_22_1999

103. The trial Court discarded all these Exhibits basically on the misreading of Ex.A19. The trial Court held that in view of Ex.A19, B6 and A1, no sanctity can be attached to the recitals about the western boundary in Ex.A3 and eastern boundary in Ex.A5 since it appears that the second plaintiff and his brother's wife who purchased the property on 03.09.1964, got the recitals by way of enclosing a piece of land to the extent of Ac.2.16 gts. belonging to the Government. This finding of the trial Court is based on wrong noting of the actual facts as held hereinabove in respect of Ex.A19, which deserves to be set aside. Now coming to the recitals in Ex. A1 corresponding to Ex.B6, relying upon which the trial Court concluded that the western boundary of Sy.No.129/56 is Government Paramboke land and not Sy.No.129/73. This finding of the trial Court is not based upon any evidence on record. Ex. A1 is the Registered Sale Deed Document No.1525 of pages 114, 115 of Book No.1 Volume V dated 27th Ardibehisht, 1355 Fasli corresponding to 27.03.1945 which is in Urdu language and its translated copy is marked as Ex. A2. Through this Sale Deed, the predecessor of the Vendors of plaintiff No.2 i.e., late Raja Dharam Karan purchased an extent of land of Ac. 8-12 gts., wherein the suit schedule property also forms part of the same, from the Original Owner Syed Riaz Ahmed. The defendants through DW-1 got marked Ex.B6 Urdu Sale Deed and its translation as Ex.B7. According to DW-1, he wrongly deposed that Ex.B6 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 17.08.1982 he did not state anything as to why this document is being marked. This document corresponds to Exs.A1 and A2 but the date 17.08.1982 is the date of Endorsement of Joint Sub-

73 GSD, J ccca_22_1999 Registrar, Hyderabad, who issued the certified copy on the said date. As per Ex.A2, the western boundary is mentioned as Nala and whereas in Ex.B7 filed by DW-1, it is mentioned as Government Nala. There is no pleading in this regard by the defendants nor DW-1 and DW-2 stated anything about the Exs.B6 and B7, they did not base their claim on this ground to state that as it is mentioned as Nala, it is a Government Paramboke Land. Though Exs.A1 and A2 corresponds to Exs.B6 and B7, it is mentioned in the translated copy Ex.A2 as Ac.3-10 gts. but the defendants do not dispute that the total extent of land in Sy.No.129/56 is only Ac.3.10 gts., but not Ac.8-12 gts. and as such it can be safely concluded that it was only a typographical mistake.