THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU APPEAL SUIT No. 8 of 2006 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2005 in Original Suit No.36 of 2002 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby the trial court dismissed the suit. 2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs, and the respondent herein is the defendant, in the suit. For better appreciation of facts, the parties are hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. The brief facts are, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are entitled for suit amount towards cost of the land acquired by the defendant corporation for formation of 80 feet road, stating as follows: Originally, about 70 years prior to filing of the suit, great grand fathers of plaintiffs were the cultivating tenants under Mosalikanti Zameen Estate, by having Ac.50.00 of land in survey no.40 of Dondaparthi Revenue village of Visakhapatnam district, by paying tenancy to the estate. Pursuant to formation of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corpoation, the property is presently situated in Ward No.33 of the Corporation. The cultivating tenants became the absolute owners of their respective lands which were under the tenancy, consequent on abolition of estates, and the predecessors of the plaintiffs, during their life time, and on their demise, the plaintiffs, have been in possession and enjoyment of the said agricultural land. In a partition effected by the grand fathers of the plaintiffs and father of plaintiffs, the latter became the share holder of Ac.14.07 cents of agricultural land in survey no.40, and thereupon the revenue officials issued a patta in his name in respect of the said extent, and the predecessors of the plaintiffs have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by incorporating their names in revenue records. After death of their father, the plaintiffs have been enjoying the property without any hindrance and the revenue records reveal the said fact. While so, in the year 1998, officials of the defendant corporation, in a meeting with the plaintiffs for private negotiations for formation of a 80 feet road, promised to pay compensation, and the plaintiffs gave consent to give their land for formation of the road on payment of compensation and solatium. In the month of April, 1999, the officials of defendant corporation formed 80 feet road by acquiring an extent of 471 square yards of land of the plaintiffs in survey no.40 of Dondaparthi. Thereafter, the plaintiffs approached the officials of defendant corporation for payment of compensation, but they were postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Thereupon, father of the plaintiffs got issued a letter in September, 1999 demanding compensation, and though the officials of defendant received the same, they did not pay any amount. The acquired property is situated in the heart of the city and hence, the suit for compensation of Rs.10,02,000/- and consequential declaration that they are entitled to the said amount. 4. The defendant corporation filed its counter denying some of the averments in the plaint and contending that before filing of the suit, the plaintiffs failed to issue the notice under Section 685 of the Corporation Act, which is mandatory. The suit is not maintainable and the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. There is no correspondence with the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs did not submit their willingness or valid sale deeds for claiming the compensation, and as such, the question of agreement stated to have been arrived, does not arise. The letters stated to have been sent by the plaintiffs, have not been received by the defendant. Since there was no claim from the plaintiffs and they failed to submit valid documents to the defendant corporation, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim the compensation. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court. 1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration for the suit amount towards costs of the land acquired for formation of 80 feet road along with interest and solatium being the owners of the suit schedule property ? 2) Whether the notice U/s.685 of the Corporation Act is necessary before filing of the suit ? 3) Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is not correct ? 4) Whether the court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit ? 5) Whether the compensation claimed by the plaintiffs is excessive and abnormal ? 6) to what relief ? 6. During trial, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were got marked, on behalf of the plaintiffs, and D.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were got marked, on behalf of the defendant. 7. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief, and accordingly, dismissed the suit. Challenging the same, the present appeal is preferred. 8. Now the point for consideration is whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper ? 9. Though notice is served, none appears for the respondent. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 11. The plaintiffs are claiming Ac.0.50 cents of land in survey no.40 of Dondaparthi village (Ward No.33 of Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation). The case of the plaintiffs is that originally the said extent of land was lying within the Mosalikanti Zameen Estate, and that their predecessors-in-title, during their life time, and after their demise, the plaintiffs, have been in possession and enjoyment of the property since long time. It is not in dispute that the defendant corporation had acquired 2/3rd of the land for formation of 80 feet road. The trial Court, after consideration of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that Ex.A3-ryotwari patta was not proved by the plaintiffs. 12. After abolition of estates, a specific procedure is contemplated under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, for grant of ryotwari patta. None of the proceedings before the Tahsildar has been filed to show that after following due procedure under Section 7 of the Act, Ex.A3 was issued. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, before issuance of Ex.A3, the Tahsildar had conducted an enquiry and issued Ex.A3, after satisfying with the claim of the plaintiffs, and hence, he prays to give an opportunity to the plaintiffs to produce necessary evidence with regard to the proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar. If a proper determination was made by the Tahsildar before issuance of Ex.A3, then the plaintiffs would be entitled to the reliefs as prayed i.e. compensation for acquiring the land for formation of 80 feet road. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances, an opportunity can be given to the plaintiffs to adduce evidence relating to the determination made for grant of ryotwari patta by the Tahsildar before issuing Ex.A3. Hence, it is a fit matter where the judgment and decree of the trial Court can be set aside and the matter can be remanded to the trial Court to give an opportunity to the plaintiffs to prove the proceedings before the Tahsildar so as to establish their right. 13. The Appeal Suit is, accordingly, allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court, and the matter is remanded to the trial Court to give an opportunity to the plaintiffs to produce evidence to prove the proceedings before the Tahsildar. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 02.06.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU APPEAL SUIT No. 8 of 2006 02.06.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU APPEAL SUIT No.8 of 2006 02.06.2010 Between: Adari Parupilli & others …Appellants And The Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner …Respondent