Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1707 (AP)

Rupakula Saradamba v. Datla Punna Reddy

2001-12-28

R.M.BAPAT

body2001
R. M. BAPAT, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant herein was the defendant and the respondent herein was the plaintiff, who had instituted O. S. No. 140 of 1990 in the Court of the Additional Senior Civil judge, Tenali for specific performance of the contract of sale. On evidence, the suit was decreed. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendant-appellant herein carried the matter in appeal by filling a. S. No. 296 of 1997 before the III Additional district Judge, Guntur. The appeal filed by the defendant-appellant herein was dismissed. Hence the Second Appeal. ( 2 ) IT is clear from the judgments of both the Courts below that the defendant appellant herein was the absolute owner of the land. He agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff when Section 4-A notification was issued by the Government for acquisition of the land. The main covenant in the agreement was that if the Government does not acquire the land, the defendant appellant herein would execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and if the government acquires the land, then the defendant-appellant herein would return the amount, which was taken by her by way of advance. ( 3 ) IT further appears from the record that when Section 4-A notification was issued and the defendant-appellant challenged it by filing W. P. No. 2915 of 1980. The said writ petition was allowed on 3-7-1981 by setting aside Section 4-A notification. ( 4 ) IT further appears from the record that the said land was to be acquired by the government for the purposes of allotting the said land to the poor section of the society. When the writ petition was allowed, the beneficiaries were aggrieved by the said order and therefore they filed Writ Appeal no. 14 of 1982 before the Division Bench of this Court. While disposing of the said writ appeal, this Court had directed as under:"we think it desirable, in the circumstances, to direct that Sec. 5-A enquiry be held. "accordingly Section 5-A enquiry was held by the Collector and finally the land, which was intended to be acquired, was released from the acquisition. At that juncture the plaintiff-respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance of the contract of sale. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The appellate Court confirmed the said decree. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel Mr. At that juncture the plaintiff-respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance of the contract of sale. The trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff. The appellate Court confirmed the said decree. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel Mr. Potti Venkata ramana Rao appearing on behalf of the defendant-appellant herein submitted at the barr that the plaintiff and the defendant were nut parties to Section 5-A enquiry proceedings and therefore the said proceedings do not bind the defendant appellant herein. This Court is not in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant herein for the reason that the appellant herself was interested in getting the land freed from the acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the defendant-appellant herein had filed W. P. No. 2915 of 1980, which was allowed in her favour. It means that the defendant-appellant herein was interested in getting the land released from the acquisition. There cannot be any other inference in this regard. ( 6 ) IT may be a fact that in Section 5-A enquiry proceedings the defendant- appellant herein and the plaintiff respondent herein may not be the parties but when the Government decided not to acquire the land and the enquiry was held under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition act, they were not the parties to the proceedings. The result of the enquiry was that the defendant-appellant herein was benefited. Therefore, the defendant appellant herein though was not party to the proceedings, it cannot be said that injustice was done to the defendant-appellant herein. On the contrary in the absence of the defendant-appellant herein, the defendant- appellant herein was benefited. Therefore, at the second appeal stage, the defendant appellant cannot make any grievance. ( 7 ) THE second point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant herein is that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent herein is barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the appellant herein submitted that when the defendant-appellant herein filed w. P. No. 2915 of 1980, at that time the plaintiff ought to have instituted the suit. The agreement of sale was entered into between the parties when W. P. No. 2915 of 1980 was filed and therefore the suit ought to have been filed by the plaintiff when the writ petition was filed. The agreement of sale was entered into between the parties when W. P. No. 2915 of 1980 was filed and therefore the suit ought to have been filed by the plaintiff when the writ petition was filed. ( 8 ) THIS Court is not in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant herein. It appears from the record that the beneficiaries filed W. A. No. 14 of 1982 because the said land was to be allotted to them by acquisition. When w. P. No. 2915 of 1980 was allowed, they were aggrieved by the said order. Therefore, they filed Writ Appeal as aforesaid. Therefore, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant herein that the limitation would start from 24-3-1987 and therefore the suit filed on 8-8-1990 is barred by limitation. ( 9 ) AS a matter of fact, by passing the order in the Writ Appeal, the issue did not come to an end as to whether the land is to be acquired or not. The division bench of this Court directed the Collector in the writ appeal to hold enquiry under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The 5-A enquiry was concluded on 16-8-1988 and the land, which was intended to be acquired which belonged to the defendant-appellant herein, was finally released on 16-8-1988 and therefore, the suit filed on 8-8-1990 is very much within the period of limitation. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant herein relied upon a ruling reported in sir Chunilal v, Mehta and Sons Ltd. , v. Century spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. This court has gone through the said judgment: but this Court is of the considered view that the facts stated therein are not applicable to the present set of facts. ( 11 ) UNDER these circumstances, this Court holds that there is no merit in the second appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.