THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.No. 1532 OF 1985 DT.7.6.2011 Between: Yarlagadda Mallikharjunaprasad and ors … Petitioners And The State of AP rep by its District Collector, Krishna and ors … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D Madhusudhanasastry Counsel for respondent: The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.No. 1532 OF 1985 JUDGMENT : (Per Sri B Chandra Kumar,J) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.3.1985 in O.S. No. 4 of 1974 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam. The appellants are defendants 2 to 5 and respondents 1 and 2 herein are plaintiffs before the lower Court. The parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the lower Court, for the sake of convenience. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for recovery of amount claimed towards the income derived by the defendants from 10.1.1968 to the end of Fasli 1382 from the lands situated in the villages mentioned in the schedule. The first defendant Mr.S.R.Y.Sivaramaprasad Bahadur, who is no more, was Ex.Zamindar of Devarakota estate. The said estate was notified and taken over by the Government on 7.9.1949. Subsequently, he filed applications under Section 12 read with Section 15 of the Estates Abolition Act, claiming vast extents of lanka lands in Krishna river. The Assistant Settlement Officer who enquired into the matter, has allowed the claims regarding certain items and rejected certain other items. Against the said order of disallowing the claims as regards his lands in the villages of Kokkiligadda, Cheedupudi, Nadakuduru, Sreekakula, Potharlanka and Gajula Lanka, the first defendant filed appeals in T.A. Nos. 47 to 54. The State also filed appeals in T A Nos. 8 and 9. The said appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal by a common judgment dated 10.1.1968. Though the claim of first defendant with regard to some items were allowed but his claim with regard to the lands of Pedakallepalli village was rejected by the settlement officer and also by the Tribunal. First defendant and his sons D2 to D4 are liable to pay damages to the Government. Against the said order in so far disallowing the claim of the first defendant in regard to lands in Pedakallepalli, the first defendant filed W P No. 2747 of 1968, however, the same was dismissed by order dated 30.8.1972 with costs. The first defendant also filed W P Nos. 2748 to 2755 of 1968 with regard to the items in other villages, but they were also dismissed by order dated 10.8.1972 with costs. Thereafter, the first defendant filed stay petitions in 9942 to 9949 of 1968 and thereby prevented the Government from taking possession of the lands in regard to which his claim was negatived. By order dated 9.9.1968 the said stay petitions were dismissed and stay orders were vacated. Suppressing the earlier orders of the Courts, the first defendant filed Injunction Petitions in the writ petitions before this Court and obtained injunction orders restraining the Government from interfering with his enjoyment of these lands in question. Although the possession was taken over by the Government, because of the injunction orders obtained by the first defendant, he and his family members continued to enjoy the properties and derived income from these lands which are fertile lands and valuable crops such as sugar cane, paddy, vegetables and other commercial crops were raised. Finally by order dated 17.4.1972 in C.M.P.Nos. 47 to 54 of 1969 this Court modified the injunction orders and directed that injunction orders would continue on condition of writ petitioner therein deposits Rs.25,000/- in the Court and furnish a security for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- within two months from the date of the said order. However, the first defendant failed to comply with the said orders and ultimately the Government could take possession of the said lands in August, 1972. Though possession was taken by the Government in August, 1972 because of NGO’s strike from December, 1972 to March, 1973, the first defendant derived income from these lands in Fasli 1382 against the orders of the High Court. The first defendant prevented the Government from realizing the income from the schedule lands from Fasli 1378 till the end of Fasli 1382. Since the claim of the first defendant have been negatived by the Estates Abolition Tribunal and finally by this Court, the Government is entitled to claim damages against the first defendant. After the demise of first defendant, his other legal heirs defendants 5 to 10 were added. However, during his life time first defendant contested the suit. The first defendant filed a written statement. His main case was that the Settlement Officer, the Tribunal and this Court did consider his claim under Section 12 (a) of the Estates Abolition Act and therefore all the earlier orders become nonest in the eye of law. If the plaintiff already took possession, there was nothing to prevent, the Government to realize the income of the lands and pendency of injunction petitions or interim orders prevented the Government from realizing the crops. In fact, lessee only continued in possession and realized the income from these lands. It is not true to say that lands are fertile lands and valuable crops were raised. Fourth defendant filed separate written statement and contended that no right can accrue to the plaintiff to claim damages on account of dismissal of stay petitions or writ petitions filed by the petitioner. On other aspects he has also made similar pleadings as made by the first defendant. Defendant no.2 and 3 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant no.4. Defendants 5 to 10 who are legal representatives of first defendant filed memo adopting the written statement filed by first defendant. The lower Court framed necessary issues and additional issues. On behalf of plaintiffs P.W.1 to P.W.20 were examined and Exs.A1 to A44 were marked. On behalf of defendants D.Ws 1 to 3 were examined and exhibits B.1 to B.61 were marked. Ex.X1 was also marked. However, the Court below on appreciation of both the oral and documentary evidence and considering the points raised by both the parties, decreed the suit for an amount of Rs.7,28,671.10 ps with interest thereon at 6 % per annum from 15.1.1974 till the date of realization and also to pay costs of Rs.19,391.35 ps. Yesterday when the matter is taken up for hearing, none appeared for the appellants nor any representation made on their behalf, as such the matter was directed to be listed today for dismissal. Even today, though the matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’, none appeared for appellants. Heard the arguments of learned Government Pleader and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record, whereby it is clear that the defendants without any semblance of right have enjoyed the crops from schedule lands for many years. It is also an admitted fact that the claims put-forth by the first defendant were negatived by the Settlement Officer, Tribunal and this Court. Therefore it is clear that the possession of the defendants was illegal and they were bound to pay the amounts to the plaintiffs as claimed by them for the period from 10.1.1968 to the end of Fasli 1382. On critical analysis, our findings are as follows; The first defendant who was Zamindar filed applications under Section 12 read with Section 15 of the Estates Abolition Act for grant of ryotwari patta claiming the lands as private lands. Admittedly, Devarakota estate was notified under Estates Abolition Act and taken over by the State Government on 7.9.1949. Since the claims of first defendant have been negatived in all earlier proceedings, the only question remains to be considered is whether the defendants are liable to pay damages for the benefits derived by them as claimed by the plaintiffs. The main contention of the first defendant that schedule lands are private lands and the Settlement Officer and Tribunal have no jurisdiction to decide the claims and that the Government ought to have filed suit for declaration of title was negatived by this Court in Writ Petition Nos. 2747 to 2755 of 1968 by its judgments dated 10.8.1972 and 30.8.1972 i.e., Ex.A.3 and Ex.A.33. However, the lower Court also considered this issue in detail. Definition of Estate Land, Private Land as defined under the provisions of the Act were considered in detail. The settled legal position in all the matters covered under the Act including grant of a ryotwari patta have to be dealt by the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal constituted as per the provisions of the Act and Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Therefore, the lower Court rightly held that the decision of the Tribunal in this regard became final. As far as possession and nature of crops are concerned the lower Court has taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence and dealt with the issues in detail. The lower Court rightly held that if at all the persons who were said to be in possession were personally in their individual capacity and not on behalf of the Zamindar (D1) those persons would have filed applications for Ryotwari Patta before the Settlement Officer and admittedly no objections were filed by those persons before the Settlement Officer. Admittedly first defendant filed applications seeking injunction order and stay in this Court in which he seems to have taken a specific plea that he was in possession of lands, none of his legal heirs cannot say that first defendant was not in possession of the lands. If at all the lands were in possession of third parties he would not have sought injunction order and prevented the Government from taking possession. The lower Court categorically rightly held on proper appreciation of evidence that the first defendant and his family members were in possession either personally or through tenants. Though a plea was taken that the Zamindar (D1) and his sons partitioned their properties, but admittedly no documents have been filed to substantiate such plea. As far as the issue of damages is concerned the lower Court discussed oral and documentary evidence i.e., true copy of Adangal Ex.A.5, evidence of P.W.10, P.W.11 and P.W.14, who worked as Revenue Inspectors and P.W.13 Tahsildar and Exs.A.11 to A.14 and Exs.A.36 to Ex.A.38 statements and ultimately found that the plaintiff proved the income derived from the crops raised basing on the evidence of P.Ws.8, 9, 12, 13 and 15 to 19 and we have also considered the entire material and we could not come to any other conclusion, other than the conclusion reached by lower Court. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J __________________ B CHANDRA KUMAR,J DATE: 7.6.2011 TVK 177 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B CHANDRA KUMAR A.S.No. 1532 OF 1985 DT.7.6.2011