Unnamatla Appa Rao vs Tadepalligudem Municipality

S.A.No.234/90 is filed against A.S.No. 108/87. A.S.No.108/87 is filed againstO.S.No.44/1984;

SANo.247/90 is filed aganstAS.No.111/87. A S.No, 111/87 is fled against O. S.No.72/1984.

SANo.248/90 is filed against AS.No.10e/87;

A.S.No. 106/87 and Cross-objections were filed against O. S.No. 67/1984.

In all the three Second Appeals the plaintiffs are the appellants. All the three suits were filed for declaration of their title and for injunction restraining the Municipality from interfering with their possession in respect of the plaint schedule property. The facts in briefinO.S.No.44/1984 are as follows:

The plaint schedule site is 400 square yards. Originally it is a part of Mokasu Inam cultivable land covered by Block Survey No.215. A''DharmaCheruvu''calledas''Siddi Cheruvu1 existed in a part of the said Block SurveyNo.215. There is aroad called Koderu Nallajerla Road towards west of the Block. To the East and West of Koderu Nallajerla Road ''Chenchu'' community people occupied and raised huts on permission given by Mokasadars. The plaintiff is a Dealer in Rice, He obtained 400 Sq.Yards of site in the western side of Siddi Cheruvu area where Ihere was a market on payment of Rs.50/-as consideration to Mokasadars. He also paid another Rs.50/- for the huts of those Chench people to carry on the business of trading in rice in the hut.

The extent to tank in SurveyNo.215 was Acs. 10.64 cents. In the survey conducted in 1992 it was found to be Acs.9.68 cents. Thus 0.96 cents was excluded from the original tank and 400 Sq. Yards of the plaint schedule form part of the said 0.96 cents. In the year 1950, when the Panchayat Act was implemented, the District Board officials claimed the site as having vested in the District Board. Therefore, the plaintiff and his father obtained lease from the District Board in respect of the site. Later on the Village Panchayat assessed the building and site to House tax and collected the same from the plaintiff. In the year 1961, the Tadepalligudem was declared as Estate and Panchayat was abolished. The Tadepalligudem Panchayat became Municipality meanwhile. The Municipality continued to collect the taxes and started granting licences for the purpose of carrying on Rice Mill business. Therefore on the abolition of Estate the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the site as a consequence of the Estates Abolition Act. However, under a mistake of fact the plaintiff continued to pay lease amount to the District Board and later to the Panchayat and Municipality. In the year 1958 temporary structure was allowed to be converted to a permanent structure and lease was renewed for 20 years over an extent of 400 Sq.Yard*. Thereafter, the plaintiff constructed permanent structure at the cost of Rs.70,000/- with the permission of the Municipality. The Municipal council, Tadepalligudem on 30-1-1965 requested the Director of Town Planning to exclude the site of 400 Sq.Yards in the occupation of the plaintiff from the lay out area of Brahmananda Reddy Market. Accordingly it was excluded. While so, on 30-2-1979 the Municipal Commissioner issued a notice asking the plaintiff to vacate the premises. The plaintiff filed a writ petition which was dismissed directing the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court The plaintiff invested a sum of Rs.3 lakhs for construction of Rice Mill and the cost of the area would be Rs.6 lakhs. Therefore, the suit for declaration of title.

The defendants filed a written statement contending that against the writ petition W.P.No. 5985/79, the plaintiff filed W.A.No.713/80 which was also dismissed and the judgment in W.P.No.5985/79 operates as res judicata. They denied, that the site is part of Mokasa Inam cultivable land. On the other hand, they contended that the District Board granted lease and went on granting renewal of lease of site measuring 250 Sq.Yards situated in Toad Market area for one year from 1-1-58 on payment of lease amount of one Anna per square yard ''per month and also granted additional site of 150 Sq.Yards contiguous to the same plot at the same rate. The plaint schedule site is a communal site vested in the District Board and not cultivable land. They denied that the plaintiff purchased the land from the Mokasadars and Chenchus. The land was excluded from Brahmanandareddy market area as per the resolution of the Municipality on 30-1-1965 at the request of the plaintiff who has got 20 years lease from 1959. It is denied that 400 Sq.Yards site was part of 0.96 cents forming part of the lank area The land vested in the District Board, later on transferred to Tadepalligudem Municipality. The collection of taxes is not in recognition of any pre-existing rights of the plaintiff They denied that the plaintiff applied for lease under a mistake of fact. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any declaration of title nor for any injunction and on the expiry of lease the defendants are entitled to recover possession of the plaint-schedule properly.

In O.S.No.67/84 the facts in brief are that the plaintiffs are owners and are in occupation of small plots of plaint schedule house sites. The averments in this suit are more or less similar to the averments made in O.S.No.44/87. According to averments in this suit the tank Siddi Cheruvu was originally covered over an extent of Acs. 10.64 cents because of silt gradually it left vacant land and the extent of tank was reduced to Acs.9.49 cents. Thus excluding the extent of Ac. 1.15 cents, Mokasadars who were the original title holders of the village Tadepalligudem, alienated the vacant land in Rs.No.13/1 on anominal consideration to the plaintiffs and their predecessors in title. The estate in Tadepalligudem was abolished in July,1961 and the plaintiffs who have constructed buildings became absolute owners. Consequent on the abolition of Tadepalligudem village, the Municipality has no manner of right or title and the Municipality has no right to interfere with the construction of any Block in Survey No.215 and hence the suit for declaration of their title in respect of the plaint schedule property and for injunction against the defendants.

The averments in the written statement are more or less similar to the averments made in O.S.No. 44/1984 and hence they are not repeated once again.

In O.S.No.72/1984 identical averments are made by the plaintiffs as that of in O.S.No. 67/1984.

In the written statement filed on behalf of the Municipality, they denied that the plaintiffs are the owners of Rs.No. 13/1 in ''Dharma Cheruvu''. They have also denied that Mokasadars are the owners of S.No.13/1 and Rs.No.226 and that Chenchu community built huts and proceeded with their profession of basket weaving. They further denied that on the date of abolition of Tadepalligudem, the plaintiffs were in possession of the building and that they are entitled for the schedule land and building. The suit properly referred to in the plaint as Siddi Cheruvu vested stalutorily in Tadepalligudem Panchayat and the District Board, West Godavari. The suit property is part of the original Toad market which was later disignated as Brahmananda Reddy Market. After the abolition of the District Board the rights and possession of the plaintiffs devolved on the Zillaparishad. The Toad market was constituted on 1 -10-1957 and the Zilla Parishad proposed to transfer Toad marketto Tadepalligudem Municipality. Accordingly, it was transferred on 12-2-1962 by a resolution No.322. Thereafter, the Government issued GO.Ms.No.397 Municipal Administration transferring the Toad market to Tadepalligudem Municipality with effect from 1-4-1962. The Municipality has been exercising the rights of ownership since its inception over the market area The area in question is described as circar Poramboke, market poramboke etc. in the village Accounts. Since a long time there was a proposal to construct shop rooms abutting Koderu-Nallajerla Road, at a cost of Rs.20 lakhs as per the G.O.No.l24-H dated 14-6-1968. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief.

On the basis of the respective pleadings the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suits holding that none of the plaintiffs have title to the plaint schedule property and none of the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration of their title to plaint schedule property. Holding as above, he directed the defendants to evict the plaintiffs. Similarly O.S.Nos.67/84 and 72/84 were also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed A.S.No.108/87 against O.S.No.44/1984; AS.No.106/87 and cross-objections were filed against O.S.No.67/1984 and A.S.No. 111/87 was filed against O.S.No.72/1984. The learned District Judge, West Godavari confirmed the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge. Hence, the Second Appeals are filed.

The learned District Judge held that under Ex. A-25 certified copy of No.2 account of Tadepaltigudem village for survey No.398 corresponding to survey Nos.215,13/1, under the column ''Pattedars'' the words Poramboke was written and hence he dis-believed the case of the plaintiffs that Acs. 1.15 cents of land which is not covered by Siddi Cheruvu as a private land of Mokasadars. He also held that Ex. A-34 certified copy of settlement register of the year 1932 for S.No.13/1 corresponding to S.No. 197 is a private land of Plot No. 1052. Since the present survey Number in dispute is S.No.398 corresponding to oldS.No.215, co-related to old S.No. 13/1 while the land under Ex. A-34 is old S.No. 197 and therefore, the land under occupation is a private land, cannot be sustained as contended by the plaintiffs. The learned Judge also observed that Ex.A-35. Original Field Measurement Book of 1896 relating to Field No.35 shows that field No.35 is a tank measuring Acs.2.00. Since, there is no evidence that old S.No.215 is corresponding to Field No.35/1896 of the original Field Measurement Book, the learned Judge rejected this document to hold that the plaint schedule property is the private land of Mokasadars. Similarly the contention of the plaintiffs is that a suit was filed between two Mokasadars in O.S.No.41/42 before the Subordinate Judge, Eluru in regard to S.No.4 and the Court held that it is a private cultivable land and the finding of the Sub-Judge in O.S.No.41/42 was confirmed by the District Court and therefore, there is a private land belonging to Mokasadars to the west of S.No.35 was also rejected on the ground that there is no evidence that ''Siddi Cheruvu'' was covered by old S.No.35 and that the defendant-Municipality is not a party to the said suit and therefore, it is not binding on the Municipality.

Referring to the evidence of Village Karanam of Tadepalligudem P.W.5, the learned Judge held that there is no private land between Rs.No.398 corresponding to old S.No. 13/1 and 215 and Koderu-Nallajerla road. He rejected Ex.A-37 plan filed by the plaintiff as not authenticated. Referring to Ex.A-33 certified copy of No.2 Adangal of Tadepalligudem he held that S.No.398 is a Municipal Shandy Market from fasli 1385. Ex.A-64 is the counter filed by the defendant-Municipality before the Settlement Officer in which it is stated that Siddi Cheruvu area covered by old S.No.215 was a communal poramboke prior to 1926anditwascoverted into Shandy market indicating that Siddi Cheruvu in present S.No.398 is a communal poramboke. As the communal poramboke is vested in the Government, the learned Judge rejected the claim of the plaintiffs that old S.No.215 is a private land of Mokasadars. He also rejected Ex.A-63 extract of mam Fair Register as not helpful to the plaintiffs in addition he relied on Exs. A-64,65,68 and 69 leasedeeds executed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.44/84 in favour of the defendants to hold that the plaintiff is the lessee and that he is not the owner of the property.

From the findings of the District Judge confirming the findings of the learned Sub-Judge, it is clear that the plaintiffs claimed that the plaint schedule property is the private land of Mokasadars originally forming part of ''Siddi Cheruvu'', later on because of silting an extent of Acs.l.15 cents was treated as vacant land and the same was sold by Mokasadars to the plaintiffs. After purchasing the lands from Mokasadars they have constructed a building and on tie abolition ofTadepalligudem Estate village they are the absolute owners of the building and the land and the Municipality has no right to interfere with the same. While the defendants contended that right from the beginning the plaint schedule property is Village Poramboke and it has vested in the, District Board later on in the Zilla Parishad and then in the Municipality. And the District Board, Zilla Parishad and Municipality granted lease to the plaintiffs in O.S.No.44/1984 and that the plaintiffs are not the owners of the property and the property is vested in the Municipality.

The finding arrived at by both the Courts below is that the plaint schedule properly is not private land of Mokasadars and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any declaration as the property is vested in the District Board and later on in the Municipality. The finding arrived at by both the Courts is finding of fact based on documentary and oral evidence. I do not see any reason to interfere with the said finding. And no substantial question of law is involved in these Second Appeals.

However, the argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that Tadepalligudem Estate Village was abolished in 1961. By that time they have already constructed buildings in the plaint schedule property. Therefore, on the abolition of Estate under Section-18(4) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition Act'' ''every building other than a building referred in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall, with effect on and from die notified date, vest in the person who owned it immediately before that date'' ''and under sub-section (5) of Section 18 ''building* includes the site on which it stands and any adjacent preriiises occupied as an appurtenance thereto, and under subsection (6) of Section 18 whether any building or land falls or does not fall within the scope of sub-sections (1)(2)(3)(4) or (5) it shall be referred to the Government whose decision shall be final, which shall not be questioned in any Court of law. Therefore, the Civil Court has no jurisdiclion and the Civil Court ought to have referred the matter to the Government for the purpose of deciding whether the buildings and the site in dispute fall within the'' meaning of Sections 18(1) or 18(4) of the A.P.(A. A) Estates Abolition Act.

It is true a building other than a building covered by Section 18(1) vests in a person who owned it immediately before the date of abolition. But in this case the finding of both the Courts below is that the land is not a private land but belonging to the Municipality. Therefore, he has constructed building on the land belonging to the Municipality and not in the private land and hence Section 18(4) of the A.P.(AA) Estate* Abolition Act has no application. It applies only to aland belonging to the private land of Mokasadars in which a person constructs a building then only Section 18(4) applies. If Section 18(4) has no application the question of referring it to the Government for the purpose of ascertaining whether the building or land falls under Sections 18(1) or 18(4) does not arise. Therefore, the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants does not deserve any consideration. The Second Appeals therefore, have no merit and they are accordingly dismissed with costs.