( 1 ) THE plaintiffs in O. S. No. 1 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Parvatipuram are the appellants. The appellants as plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of the plaintiffs possessory title in respect of the schedule lands till the Government took possession of the lands as the plaintiffs are deemed to be in continuous possession of the lands till proper compensation is paid, for recovery of the suit amount of rs. 1,67,400/- towards land value and damages for use and occupation for subsequent damages at the prevailing rates or any alternative for recovery of rs. 1,06,151/- towards land value solatium and interest till the date of filing of the suit as the government had taken possession of the lands under the provisions of the Land acquisition Act, and for costs of the suit. ( 2 ) THE allegations made in the plaint by the appellants-plaintiffs are as follows:"the plaint schedule mentioned lands covered by S. Nos. 138, 127, 153 and 129 are situated in the village of pandirimamidivalasa in Salur Taluk. They are assessed waste and are subject matter of assignment of the plaintiffs who are depressed class people, by the government in or about the year 1969. Since then onwards, the plaintiffs have reclaimed the assigned lands and in due exercise of their rights the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the same without any let or hindrance, and the plaintiffs are not liable to be dispossessed except under due process of law. The plaintiffs have reclaimed and brought the assigned lands on part with the other jeroithi lands of the village and used to raise jute, ragi and light paddy crops on these lands. Thus, they have enjoyed the said lands for more than ten years, raising valuable commercial crops realising nearly rs. 2,000/- on each acre of land every year till the schedule lands were utilised by the government. On account of advent of the Vengalaraya Sagar project, the defendants acquired most of the lands situated in the said village for the purpose of the said project. Necessary notification was made in the year 1978 regarding the other lands of the village. 2,000/- on each acre of land every year till the schedule lands were utilised by the government. On account of advent of the Vengalaraya Sagar project, the defendants acquired most of the lands situated in the said village for the purpose of the said project. Necessary notification was made in the year 1978 regarding the other lands of the village. But the schedule mentioned lands were not notified so as to enable the plaintiffs to claim compensation even though the Special Deputy collector (L. A.) enquired the plaintiffs and recorded their statements and taken their D-form pattas, but the claim of the plaintiffs for compensation for the schedule lands was not considered. The plaintiffs could not have been disposed except under due process of law. The method adopted in dispossessing the plaintiffs by the defendants in unwarranted and not in accordance with the provisions of law and also not in accordance with various G. Os. issued by the government from time to time regarding assignment of D-form pattas to depressed class people. The defendants violated the clear instructions of the Government to award compensation to those plaintiffs for the lands taken from them as they belong to depressed class people. Therefore, the plaintiffs are deemed to be in continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned land till proper compensation is paid to them for the lands taken from them. Therefore, they are entitled for damages for use and occupation of the lands in question or in the alternative for the value of the land fixed by the subordinate Judges Court for similar lands of the village with solatium and interest from the date of passing of the award regarding the other lands of the village. The plaintiffs made many a demand for redressal of their grievances for payment of the compensation to their lands along with other ryotwari lands in the village and particularly in the year 1981, when the award was passed regarding the other lands of the village and also by way of many representations but are no avail. Therefore, the suit is filed for declaration of their possessory entitle as they are deemed to be in continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned lands and for recovery of rs. 1,67,400/- towards damages for use and occupation or for compensation to be fixed with regarding the provisions of the L. A. Act and for other reliefs". Therefore, the suit is filed for declaration of their possessory entitle as they are deemed to be in continuous possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned lands and for recovery of rs. 1,67,400/- towards damages for use and occupation or for compensation to be fixed with regarding the provisions of the L. A. Act and for other reliefs". ( 3 ) THE 2nd defendant filed a written statement which was adopted by the 1st defendant and it was further pleaded in the written statement as follows:"the plaint schedule mentioned lands are assessed waste dry lands and were assigned to the plaintiffs in the year 1969-1970 under D-form pattas, the plaintiffs have not done any reclamation work and have not brought them under cultivation. There is no necessity for the defendants to follow the provisions of the L. A. Act. The plaintiffs cannot be deemed to be in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands in question until necessary proceedings are initiated by the government. They are not entitled for any damages for use and occupation of the government lands in question. It is not necessary that the schedule mentioned lands are to be notified under Section 4 (1) of the l. A. Act for the reasons that the land belongs to the government and the government had got vested right in them. The plaintiffs are only assignees with restricted rights and under certain limitations. The paramount right, title and interest are always kept in tact with the government. The government granted the suit lands under D-form pattas to the plaintiff before the advent of Vengalaraya Sagar Project. The plaintiffs have taken the lands subject to various conditions and one of the conditions stipulated therein is, that if the assigned lands are required by the government for a project or for any public purpose, the lands will be resumed and no compensation would be paid to the assignees. Therefore, the plaintiffs who are assignees are not entitled to any compensation or for any other reliefs claimed in this suit as the lands are assessed waste lands in which the title and interest vest in the government. The plaintiffs were only granted these lands on D-form pattas for cultivation only. Among other conditions, a condition has been imposed in this regard and the assignees were given possession to cultivate the lands with certain limitations. The plaintiffs were only granted these lands on D-form pattas for cultivation only. Among other conditions, a condition has been imposed in this regard and the assignees were given possession to cultivate the lands with certain limitations. In view of these stipulations and conditions subject to which the assignment was taken by the plaintiffs, they are not entitled for any compensation for the lands resumed by the government for the purpose of irrigation project. As these lands assigned to the plaintiffs have become necessary for the purpose of Vengalaraya Sagar project, proceedings under the L. A. Act are not necessary. Therefore, these lands have rightly been not notified under section 4 (1) of the said Act. The plaintiffs have not made any improvements to the lands in question and have not spent any labour or money. Therefore, they are not entitled to any money value in this regard. There is no acquisition of the lands in this instant case. Acquisition would presume a title in the expropriated owner and the transfer of such rights on acquisition. There is no transfer of ownership or right to the person possession of the property to the government since the government is admittedly the paramount owner of the suit lands. The L. A. Act cannot apply to the suit lands because all the government lands being vested in the government and it is competent and free to devote any of the suit lands for a public purpose. The process of assignment is only guided by the B. S. O. 15 and the relevant paragraphs thereunder. The assignment of the suit lands in favour of the plaintiffs by the government is not a out right grant. Power is reserved to government to resume the lands in case of the lands being required for project or other public purpose and no compensation shall be paid in such an event to the assignees who are the plaintiffs in the instant case. As the suit lands are resumed by the government for the purpose of Vengalaraya Sagar Project and within the frame-work of the Board standing Order dealing with he subject of assignment. The plaintiffs are not entitled for any damages for use and occupation of the lands in question. The plaintiffs cannot be termed as having been dispossessed illegally. As the suit lands are resumed by the government for the purpose of Vengalaraya Sagar Project and within the frame-work of the Board standing Order dealing with he subject of assignment. The plaintiffs are not entitled for any damages for use and occupation of the lands in question. The plaintiffs cannot be termed as having been dispossessed illegally. There is no cause of action for the suit and the cause of action mentioned by the plaintiffs is not correct. The suit is also bad for misjoinder of causes of action as there is no joint interest as amongst the plaintiffs. The suit is barred by time. The suit is not maintainable under law. The plaintiffs have no rights vested in the suit lands. The plaintiffs are not entitled for relief of declaration and for relief of damages also. The plaintiffs are not entitled to any interest. The suit schedule is incorrect". ( 4 ) ON the basis of the respective pleadings of the parties the following issues were settled: (a) Whether the plaintiffs are the persons interested in the suit property? (b) Whether the plaintiffs reclaimed the suit lands and were in possession and enjoyment of the same by raising crops thereon? (c) Whether the plaintiffs can be deemed to be in continuous possession and enjoyment of the lands in question until necessary proceedings are initiated by the government? (d) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any damages for use and occupation of the suit lands in question and if so to what amount? (e) Whether the plaintiffs have made any improvements to that suit lands by spending labour or money and if so are they entitled to any money value in this regard? (f) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration prayed for? (g) Whether the plaintiff are entitled for subsequent damages and if so at what rate? (h) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of the suit amount or if not to what amount towards the land value, solatium and interest till the date of filing of the suit? (i) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action? (j) Whether the suit claim is barred by time? (k) Whether the plaintiffs are not entitled to any interest? (1) Whether the suit schedule is correct? (m) Whether the suit is not maintainable under law? (n) To what relief? (i) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action? (j) Whether the suit claim is barred by time? (k) Whether the plaintiffs are not entitled to any interest? (1) Whether the suit schedule is correct? (m) Whether the suit is not maintainable under law? (n) To what relief? ( 5 ) BEFORE the trial Court P. Ws. 1 to 5 were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs-defendants and Exs. A-1 to A-5 also were marked, on behalf of the defendants D. W. 1, deputy tahsildar alone was examined. The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence had decreed the suit in favour of the appellant-plaintiffs for recovery of Rs. 59,796/- (fifty nine thousands, seven hundred and ninety six only) with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 6% p. a. from the date of the suit till realisation on the said sum and the rest of the suit claim was dismissed without costs, in the circumstances of the case. The appellants-plaintiffs aggrieved by that portion of the judgment negativing the relief partly had preferred the present appeal. ( 6 ) SRI Subhash Chandra Bose, learned counsel representing the appellants- plaintiffs had submitted that the trial Court had not appreciated the facts of the case in proper perspective and the appellants-plaintiffs are entitled to the amount as claimed by them and also the other benefits. The learned counsel also further submitted that at any rate granting of 6% interest is totally unjustified and in a similar fact situation the Division Bench of this Court in a. S. No. 2953 of 1987 and A. S. No. 813 of 1988 had granted 12% interest from the date of dispossession till the date of payment of compensation. Sri Gopal Das, learned government pleader for Andhra Area on the other hand had contended that as far as granting of 6% is concerned, it is within the discretion of the Court and the trial Court had exercised the said discretion which need not be interfered with by the appellate Court. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the Larger Bench reported in State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By District collector, Vizianagaram v. Bondapalli Sanyasi and others. The learned counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the Larger Bench reported in State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By District collector, Vizianagaram v. Bondapalli Sanyasi and others. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the same the appellants are not entitled to relief as prayed for and the trial Court was well justified in fixing the amount which had been granted by way of damages and hence the same need not be interfered with. ( 7 ) HEARD both the counsel, the points which arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows: (a) Whether the appellants-plaintiffs are entitled to the amount as claimed by them? (b) Whether the appellants-plaintiffs are entitled to the other benefits under the Land Acquisition Act? (c) Whether the appellants-plaintiffs are entitled to an interest of 12% instead of 6% from the date of suit till the date of realisation? (d) If so, to what relief the parties are entitled?point a: ( 8 ) THE plaint schedule lands are assessed waste dry lands and they were granted to the plaintiffs who are girijans and land-less depressed class poor people on D-form pattas for cultivation in the year 1969-1970 and it is also not in dispute that these lands were taken from the plaintiffs by the government for Vengalaraya Sagar Project. The 6th plaintiff was examined as P. W. 1, 7th plaintiff as P. W. 2 and these witnesses were supported by other witnesses P. Ws. 3 to 5. A-1 is the office copy of registered notice, A-2 is the acknowledgment, A-3 is true copy of the d-form patta given to the 6th defendant, a-4 is the copy of G. O. Ms. No. 1185 dt. 27-7-1981, A-5 is the copy of G. O. Ms. No. 180, dt. 9-2-1984. ( 9 ) THE trial Court apart from appreciating the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5, Exs. A-1 to A-5 had also appreciated the evidence of D. W. 1, the deputy Tahsildar and had discussed all the aspects and had arrived at a conclusion that by way of damages the appellants-plaintiffs are entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 59,796/- which proportionate costs. 1 to 5, Exs. A-1 to A-5 had also appreciated the evidence of D. W. 1, the deputy Tahsildar and had discussed all the aspects and had arrived at a conclusion that by way of damages the appellants-plaintiffs are entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 59,796/- which proportionate costs. In the light of the view expressed by majority in the Larger Bench decision in the State of andhra Pradesh s case (1 supra), I am of the opinion that in view of the fact that these lands were taken for Vengalaraya Sagar project, which are assigned lands to the girijans given under the D-form pattas, the finding that the appellants are entitled to recover only Rs. 59,796/- cannot be said to be in any way unreasonable and hence the said finding need not be disturbed. Point b: ( 10 ) IT is also pertinent to note that these are all lands under D-form pattas which had been taken for the sake of project by government and in view of the Larger Bench decision referred to supra the appellants-plaintiffs are not entitled to the other benefits since these lands are not acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Point c: ( 11 ) THE trial Court had granted a decree for Rs. 59,796/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 6% p. a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation. It is no doubt true that the granting of interest is within the discretion of the Court, but however the exercise of such discretion should be proper and reasonable. The learned counsel for the appellants had placed strong reliance on decision of Division Bench in a. S. No. 2953 of 1987 and A. S. No. 813 of 1988 wherein in a similar fact situation 12% had been granted from the date of dispossession till the date of the payment of compensation. In the light of the same and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the present case it will also be just and reasonable to grant 12% interest from the datee of suit till the date of realisation instead of 6% as granted by the trial Court. Except this modification, i do not think that any other relief can be granted to the appellants-plaintiffs in this appeal. Except this modification, i do not think that any other relief can be granted to the appellants-plaintiffs in this appeal. Point d: ( 12 ) IN view of the findings recorded above the relief of damages for taking the properties of the appellants-plaintiffs for the sake of a project and fixing the sum at Rs. 59,796/- is hereby affirmed and further the interest granted at 6% p. a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation is modified to 12% and hence the appellants-plaintiffs are entitled to 12% interest from the date of suit till the date of realisation of the aforesaid amount. The judgment and decree of the trial Court are modified to the extent indicated above and thus the appeal is partly allowed. ( 13 ) BUT however in the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as the dispute is only relating to interest each party is directed to bear their own costs.