THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5793 OF 2009 DATED: 05-03-2010 Between: Sidda Muralimohana Rao & 17 others. ..... PETITIONERS And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its District Collector, Vizianagaram District & 2 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This petition is directed against the order, dated 01-06-2009, in I.A.No.841 of 2008 in O.S.No.150 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram, wherein the said application filed by the revision petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint by adding paragraph (e) in the plaint, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. Petitioners herein filed the suit for declaration of their title to the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction. According to the petitioners, they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and are in possession and enjoyment of the same and they have perfected their title also by adverse possession. They further pleaded that they have got rights of occupancy in the schedule land, having enjoyed the same for more than fifty years, and they are entitled for protection of the same. In the plaint, they based their claim only on their title to the property based on the registered title deeds and on the premise that it was the private property purchased by them. 4. When the matter was coming up for trial, petitioners/plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint by adding paragraph (e) and proposing to incorporate paragraph (e) as follows: “As per the revised assignment policy of the Government, the valid restrictions and wrong classifications are not imposed on the occupants as the transfer of occupation rights are acquired by successions or inheritance. The occupancy rights are applicable for the unoccupied land and transfer of acquired land which are heritable and transferable to the owner or occupant of the land. As once sale transaction is performed on payment of market value. Such of the right, title on the land is heritable and transferable. The Prohibition of transfer of occupancy rights or heritable rights on collection of market value are in applicable where the schedule lands were granted pattas or issued pattadar pass books basing on the sale deeds. As the schedule property acquired by plaintiff’s succession or successionship. The requirement of sanction from collection does not cover occupancy rights or successional rights. The lands cannot be resumed merely basing upon revenue entries without furnishing relevant particulars as per the nature of occupancy rights for the plaintiffs. It is the duty of the revenue authorities to give notice to persons whose possession of the schedule land is too. However the defendant authorities not precluded from initially proceeding for change of revenue records to mutate for names of the plaintiffs basing on the sale deed of the plaintiffs as an absolute owner and unperturbed possessors in respect of suit lands”. 5. Respondents filed a counter, opposing the petition mainly on the ground that the proposed amendment would completely alter the nature of the suit and also change the cause of action and under the guise of the proposed amendment the plaintiffs are trying to put forward altogether a new claim based on the set of facts, which is impressible. After hearing both sides, the learned Senior Civil Judge by the impugned order dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred the present revision. 6. It is not disputed that the suit is filed for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction and in the plaint, as originally filed, the claim of the plaintiffs for declaration of their title is based on their alleged purchase of the property under registered sale deeds, dated 27-12-1944 and 06-11-1951 under which the plaintiffs’ forefathers purchased the land. Plaintiffs alleged that the respondents were trying to trespass into the suit property and hence they were constrained to file the suit to protect their possession and enjoyment. Respondents have been contending that the suit land belongs to Government, and the Government was proposing to utilize the same for public purpose and the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest therein. 7. When the matter was coming up for trial, plaintiffs proposed to amend the plaint by raising a plea to the effect that by virtue of the policy of the Government, as enunciated in the G.O.Ms.No.162 Rev. (Assignment), dated 16-02-2008, petitioners are entitled to claim occupancy rights over the schedule land and consequently they are entitled for perfection of their possession and enjoyment. Thus it can be seen that the proposed amendment, incorporating a new plea, is diametrically opposite to the original claim made in the plaint inasmuch as the plaintiffs have claimed absolute title over the suit property by virtue of the purchase of their predecessors on the premise that it is a private property whereas, in the proposed amendment they are pleading that it is a Government land assigned in favour of their forefathers and they are entitled for occupancy rights by virtue of possession and enjoyment. The trial Court has therefore rightly held that the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to amend the plaint in a situation where the proposed amendment would entirely alter the nature and character of the suit and also change the cause of action and bring about a new case, altogether which totally at variance with the original claim made in the plaint. 8. It is no doubt well settled that the amendment to the pleadings can be permitted liberally and at any stage of the proceedings. However when the proposed amendment is so vastly different from the original pleading in the plaint that it brings about a total change in the complexion of the suit itself and the plea raised by way of amendment is diametrically opposite to the original plea made in the plaint, such an amendment cannot be permitted. In the present case, the original plea in the plaint and the plea raised in the proposed amendment do not simply go altogether. If really the plaintiffs intend to base their claim on the proposed plea that it is a Government land and they have acquired occupancy rights and they are entitled for grant of such occupancy rights, the proper course would be to approach the concerned authorities in that regard. The inconsistent pleas raised by the plaintiffs in the original plaint and the proposed amendment do not therefore go together and hence, the proposed amendment, if allowed would certainly bring about total change in the nature and complexion of the suit, which is impermissible. The learned Senior Civil Judge has rightly held that the plaintiffs are not entitled for amendment of the plaint, as proposed. The impugned order, dismissing the said application, does not therefore call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as the same does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 05th March, 2010 Tsy