Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1329 (AP)

Ruparaju Subba Rao v. V. V. Subramanyam

2002-11-14

B.S.A.SWAMY, G.YETHIRAJULU

body2002
( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned subordinate Judge, Rajampeta in l. A. O. P. No. 1167 of 1987 declaring that the 1st respondent is the owner of the land that was acquired for the purpose of Telugu ganga. Project, this appeal is filed by the 1st claimant, Ruparaju Subbarao. ( 2 ) THE facts are not in dispute. An extent of Ac. 4. 18 cents of land in S. No. 10 of s. Seshampalli village, Porumamilla mandal, Cuddapah District, was acquired for the purpose of Telugu Ganga Project and an amount of Rs. 35,162-50 awarded towards compensation for the land acquired. It is also seen in 4 (1) notification as well as the award enquiry, he name of the appellant is shown and he participated in the enquiry. But, at the time of passing the award, the respondent came into picture and started contending that he is the owner of the land and the compensation is payable to him. ( 3 ) IN the light of conflict of interest between the parties, the Land Acquisition officer referred the matter to the Civil court for adjudication of the titled under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the land in question is situated in a Sotrium village and the Inam was abolished in the year 1975. The appellant examined himself as R. W. 1 and marked as many as 14 documents to prove the title and possession of the property. Though the 1st respondent got himself examined as R. W. 2, he did not produce any evidence. He placed reliance on Ex. B-11 wherein the Assistant Settlement Officer directed the father of the appellant and the grand father of the 1st respondent herein to apply to the Revenue Department for tranfer of registry. Thereafter, the 1st respondent herein did not place any evidence to show as to the steps he has taken for transfer of registry. ( 5 ) ON the basis of this document, the learned Subordinate Judge jumped at the conclusion that the 1st respondent herein is the owner of the property, brushing aside the voluminous documentary evidence produced by the appellant, by observing that the appellant is no other than the village Karnam and he might have brought the documents into existence, without giving any finding with regard to Ex. B-1, dated 4-8-1943 wherein the father of the appellant purchased the land from sotriumdar and also Ex. B-9, dated 14-8-1985 wherein a portion of the land was sold by the appellant to someone else and also Ex. B-10 certificate copy of declaration filed under the A. P. Land Reform Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act. ( 6 ) AT the same time, the learned subordinate Judge missed the crucial issue i. e. , who is in possession of the property from the year 1938 or on the date of notification. Though the Assistant settlement Officer directed the father of the appellant and grandfather of the respondent to approach the Revenue department for transfer of Registry, nothing absolutely has taken place for all these years. The 1st respondent did not produce even a scrap of paper to show that he is in possession of the property from 1938 till this date. On the other hand, the appellant filed the sale deed dated 14-8-1985 where under the appellant sold certain extent of land to one A. Seshaiah under Ex. B-9 and declaration under Section 8/18 of the A. P. Land Reform Ceiling on Agricultural holdings Act, 1973 under Ex. B-10 to prove that he is in possession of the property having title. ( 7 ) WHEN we repeatedly questioned the counsel for the respondent to show that how he will prove possession of the property, he simply contended that this being pasture land, his client is not paying land revenue. If that is the case, under section 2a of A. P. (AA) Inams Abolition and Conversion Act, added by Amending act 20 of 1975, all pasture lands are vested in the Government but not in the landholder. Hence, on this ground, he cannot claim possession of the land in question as no evidence whatsoever, was let in to show that he is in possession of the property and all the answers were on the assumption that it is a pasture land, We have no other option except to hold that the appellant is in possession of the property, though he cannot have transferable right over the property after abolition of the inams under Inams Abolition Act. ( 8 ) IN fact, Justice K. Ramaswamy as he then was in Raja J. Rameswar Rao v. SPL. Dy. ( 8 ) IN fact, Justice K. Ramaswamy as he then was in Raja J. Rameswar Rao v. SPL. Dy. Collector, categorically held that,"even if the ryotwari patta was not granted under the Inams Abolition act, the claimants established that they are in continuous possession of the land acquired under an unregistered sale deed for order 25 years, and, it has to be presumed that they perfected their title even by adverse possession. Even if they were inam lands initially, they being in occupation are entitled to occupancy rights. ( 9 ) WE have no hesitation to hold that the learned Senior Civil Judge completely missed the crucial issue in this case and erroneously held that the 1st respondent is in possession of the property. Since the judgment is vitiated due to severe irregularities and illegalities committed by the Senior Civil Judge, the order is set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with a consequential direction to the Civil Court to pay the compensation lying to the credit of the O. P. to the appellant within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.