HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO A.S. No.967 of 1993 Date: October 14, 2011 Between: 1. Bhagireddy Nagaraju & 2 others … Appellants/ Defendants And 1. Koppisetti Suryarao (died) & 6 others … Respondents/ Plaintiff * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO A.S. No.967 of 1993 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the judgment dated 08.02.1993 passed in O.S. No.84 of 1989 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Peddapuram. 2. The defendants filed the present appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming to be a tenant of the first defendant since 1976 for an extent of Ac.8.00 on an annual maktha of 48 bags. It was also pleaded that subsequently as there was a threat to dispossession, tenancy application was filed for declaration of the tenancy of the plaintiff and for injunction. The first Tribunal dismissed the claim and against that, an appeal was preferred and the same was allowed. The first defendant preferred a revision and it was also dismissed confirming the order of the appellate court. 3. According to the case of the plaintiff, during pendency of the above said A.T.P. the first defendant trespassed into the property of the plaintiff and dispossessed him and subsequently sold away the property to defendants 2 and 3 under a registered sale deed dated 28.5.1982. Therefore, the sales in favour of D-2 and D-3 will not defeat the plaintiff’s permanent right of tenancy. The plaintiff filed an application while the matter was pending in this Court for possession and this Court observed that the plaintiff can take recourse to the filing of the suit. Accordingly, the present suit is filed for recovery of damages for the years 1986 to 1989 for a period of three years. 4. The defendants contended that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the maktha of 48 bags as pleaded is correct. There was a joint tenancy with the plaintiff, his brothers and father and the maktha was not paid and the first defendant filed suit O.S. No.192 of 1978 for recovery of the arrears of maktha. It was also further pleaded that in February 1978 the plaintiff pleaded for remission of arrears of rent and expressed his inability to cultivate the land and consequently the first defendant got possession of the property, which was voluntarily surrendered by the plaintiff. It was also further pleaded that the claim for damages is excessive and untenable. 5. On behalf of the plaintiff P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-12 were marked. On behalf of the defendants D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B- 6 were marked. 6. Considering the evidence on record, the lower Court had passed a decree directing the defendants to deliver possession of the property to the plaintiff and also directed payment of damages to a tune of Rs.22,604/- for the years 1986 to 1988. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendants preferred the present appeal. 7. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the respondents/plaintiff are entitled for possession and the damages as claimed? 8. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants contends that after institution of the suit and during pendency of the appeal the land was acquired by the Government for Indira Sagar Project and therefore the question of delivery of possession to the plaintiff does not arise. The counsel for the respondents/plaintiff contends that the plaintiff can be given liberty to work out remedies if any available before the Land Acquisition Officer, as they are protected tenants, by invoking Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the part of the decree so far as delivery of possession is concerned has become infructuous and accordingly the fact of acquisition is recorded in the judgment. 9. So far as the damages are concerned evidently the plea of voluntary surrender as set up by the first defendant was not accepted by the tenancy Tribunal earlier also. The fact remains that the plaintiff was dispossessed and the first defendant came into possession and consequently alienation was made in favour of D-2 and D- 3 by the first defendant ignoring the tenancy rights of the plaintiff which were upheld by this Court also confirming the orders of the appellate tenancy Tribunal. Therefore, when once the plaintiff has been wrongfully dispossessed, naturally he will be entitled for damages since he has got a statutory right of protection and enjoyment of the property as a tenant. The lower court has taken into consideration that from the extent of Ac.8.00 which was leased out to the plaintiff the yield would be about 200 bags and half of it was deducted towards expenditure and after deducting maktha payable by the plaintiff to a tune of 48 bags calculated profit from the cultivation as 52 bags and granted compensation by taking into consideration the market value of the paddy. The approach made by the lower court is reasonable and cannot be faulted. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiff is not a sole tenant of the property and exclusively entitled to the compensation, since his brothers and father are also co- tenants. It is to be noted that there is no material to show that anyone of them have got a conflict of interest with the plaintiff and if at all the plaintiff denies their legally entitled amount, they can proceed against the plaintiff, but on that ground the defendants cannot avoid the liability. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I do not find that the compensation awarded by the lower court for wrongful dispossession of the plaintiff is excessive or unreasonable. Accordingly, the point is answered. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Each party do bear its own costs. ____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: October 14, 2011. BSB