JUDGMENT : This regular appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.39 of 1994 dated 10.10.2001 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. 2. The plaintiff, before the trial Court, is the appellant. The respondents herein are the defendants. 3. The appellant instituted the suit against respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for the site acquired by the Municipality for public purpose. 4. During the pendency of the suit the sole appellant died and his legal representative was added as appellant No.2, vide orders dated 05.12.2017 in A.S.M.P.No.2893 of 2017. 5. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings. 6. The case of the appellant/plaintiff in brief in the plaint was as follows : (i) He purchased Ac.0.81 cents in old S.No.205/2 and new S.No.187/4, 187/10 and 187/11 of Narasanna Nagar, Hamlet of Suryaraopeta, Kakinada under a registered sale deed dated 26.11.1980 and out of it, the plaint schedule is a part. (ii) Without informing and without giving any notice to him, a road is formed by the Municipality in the year, 1992 on the northern side of the said land about ‘40 x 200’ in total 869 sq.yards. Having observed the formation of road by the respondents, the appellant requested them for allotment of alternative site in any nearby layout area from the military road to Avakayala Company road. He also submitted a letter dated 01.01.1993 for allotment of alternative site. But there is no response from the Municipality. (iii) Then he got issued a legal notice dated 16.08.1993 and there is no reply from them. The market value of the said land is Rs.450/- per sq.yard. Hence, the suit for compensation. 7. The respondents/defendants denied the allegations in the plaint and contended in the written statement as follows : (i) There is a mud road used by the public since time immemorial and the same is belongs to the Municipality. The market value of the said land is Rs.450/- per sq.yard. Hence, the suit for compensation. 7. The respondents/defendants denied the allegations in the plaint and contended in the written statement as follows : (i) There is a mud road used by the public since time immemorial and the same is belongs to the Municipality. The Municipality passed a resolution No.693, dated 11.11.1991 for formation of gravel surface road to a width of six (6) meters with a length of 310 meters from Military road towards West upto Puntha road i.e., Avakayala Company road on the existing mud road. (ii) While formation of gravel surface road, the respondent Municipality has marked the site belongs to them in the existing mud road and the same is exclusively belongs to the Municipality. So the appellant is not entitled for compensation for the site on which the road was formed and also not entitled for getting any alternative site. (iii) There is no cause of action for the suit and the issuance of legal notice and the allegations are false. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs. 8. On these pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial : “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount? and 6. To what relief?” 9. At the trial, on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined while relying on Exs.A.1 to A.5 in support of his contentions. On behalf of the respondents/defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B.1 was exhibited. 10. Basing on the material and evidence, trial Court came to conclusion that the appellant is entitled for Rs.42,120/- towards compensation with proportionate costs and subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of suit till realization, thus, partly decreed the suit against the respondents. 11. It is against this decree and judgment, the appellant/plaintiff preferred the present appeal. 12. Heard Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. Even though sufficient opportunities availed by the learned counsel for the respondents, no arguments are advanced. 13. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court. 14. It is against this backdrop, the point, which arise for determination need consideration now : Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent and to what relief? 15. 13. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court. 14. It is against this backdrop, the point, which arise for determination need consideration now : Whether the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent and to what relief? 15. In order to answer the point, the following has been established by the plaintiff that is to say whether he is able to prove his ownership and to what extent he has proved his case of enhancement of compensation as prayed for. 16. POINT: Learned counsel for the appellant submits that though there is evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that the value of the land in that locality, in particularly place where the defendant took the land of plaintiff, ranging from Rs.450/- to Rs.500/-, the Court below not considered the same; that the Court below erred in awarding meager compensation of Rs.42,120/- to the plaintiff; that alternatively equivalent land, which was acquired, ordered to be given as sought for by the Court below and thereby, the plaintiff is entitled the relief as prayed for. 17. As against the same, according to the defendants as per Ex.A.5 father of the plaintiff has no right over the schedule land and even the Court below accepted that the plaintiff purchased some property under Ex.A.1, no right derived on the plaintiff under the said sale deed. Further, the document under Ex.A.5 specifically mentioned that the father of the plaintiff stated that whatever compensation can be received by the military. Thereby, the plaintiff has no right to seek compensation and one Mahalakshmamma said to have received compensation in this case and admittedly, Mommidi people said to have sold the land to B.Mahalaskhmamma, W/o. Venkateswarlu, who said to have taken compensation. Furthermore, when the property was in possession of military people ought to have given compensation from whom the schedule property was acquired and admittedly, Mahalakshmamma said to have received compensation and that the plaintiff is not entitled for any compensation. 18. In view of the above contentions, this Court closely perused the evidence adduced by the plaintiff as well defendants. Admittedly, the land in survey No.205 is a private land and as per F.M.B, there is no road and pathway in the said survey number. 18. In view of the above contentions, this Court closely perused the evidence adduced by the plaintiff as well defendants. Admittedly, the land in survey No.205 is a private land and as per F.M.B, there is no road and pathway in the said survey number. It is found from the evidence of D.W.1 that as per the resolution passed in 1991, municipal corporation formed a road and at present there is a road in Survey Nos.187/4 and 187/10 and it is also found that there must be some resolution for laying the road in said survey numbers. Admittedly, old survey number 205 is correlated to survey Nos.187/4 and 187/10. It is also found from the record that it is not the contention of defendants that they acquired any land in Survey Nos.187/4, 187/10 and 187/11 before formation of road. 19. It is found from the document covered under Ex.B.1 that road was laid through survey number 187/4 and 187/10 and also found that survey No.187/11 is also a private land. 20. It is the case of the plaintiff that Ac.0.81 cents purchased by him in the part of the old survey No.205 and now it is sub-division as 187/4, 187/10 and 187/11. So, the schedule particulars of Ex.A.1 show that there are subdivisions in survey No.187 as 187/4, 187/10 and 187/11 and there was a road, which all established that plaintiff is the owner of the site and the municipality laid road in the land of the plaintiff. 21. It is specific contention of the plaintiff that defendant formed a road on the northern side of the property in an extent of 869 sq.yards. Though the defendant denied formation of the road in the land of the plaintiff, from the evidence, it is found that the land, where the road was laid, belong to plaintiff alone and the contention raised by the defendant that municipality is the owner of the property has no legs to stand as there is no document to support their version. 22. More so, there is a material on record that defendant corporation formed a road in the land of the plaintiff and the said road with a width of 42 links and at a length of 286 links in survey No.187/4 included in Ex.A.1 sale deed. 22. More so, there is a material on record that defendant corporation formed a road in the land of the plaintiff and the said road with a width of 42 links and at a length of 286 links in survey No.187/4 included in Ex.A.1 sale deed. Thus, it is clear that a road to an extent of 869 sq.yards formed in the land plaintiff in the said survey number. 23. The records placed before the trial Court clearly goes to show that a road was formed to an extent of 869 square yards in Survey No.187/4 and 187/10. The Statute under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, municipal corporation is entitled to acquire land for the benefit of public, but Section 172 of the Act specifically says that the municipality is liable to provide compensation for the site where they laid a road. 24. Coming to the laying of road by the defendant/corporation is concerned, it is not the case of the plaintiff that he has raised any objection to lay a road through his site covered under Ex.A.1, but he requires compensation for the land where the municipality laid a road. 25. Admittedly, before formation of the road, as per the record, it was not acquired nor paid compensation to the plaintiff. Thereby, plaintiff is entitled for reasonable compensation for his site. The evidence on record clearly shows that P.W.1 i.e., plaintiff is the owner of the site in survey No.187/4 and 187/10, in which municipality laid a road. It may be a fact that the other owners in continuation of the road did not claim any compensation from the municipality, but it does not mean that plaintiff is not entitled to seek any compensation. 26. In Statue Book under Section 146 of the Act, it is open for municipal corporation to acquire any immovable property for any public purpose by paying compensation through negotiations and in the event of failure of negotiations, the corporation has to initiate proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act as per Section 147 of the Act. On this subject, the law is settled that whenever property is taken over by the municipal corporation, it has to follow Chapter V of the Act not otherwise. 27. Admittedly, there is no agreement under Section 146 of the Act or invoking provisions under Section 147 of the Act by the municipal corporation/defendant. On this subject, the law is settled that whenever property is taken over by the municipal corporation, it has to follow Chapter V of the Act not otherwise. 27. Admittedly, there is no agreement under Section 146 of the Act or invoking provisions under Section 147 of the Act by the municipal corporation/defendant. Therefore, the corporation in refusing to pay the compensation is not permissible under law and it is settled law that corporation is not entitled to acquire land without payment of compensation to the owner of the land. Thus, it is established that the defendant corporation has to pay compensation for laying the road on the land of the plaintiff. Furthermore, no appeal was preferred by the defendant/corporation against the findings recorded by the trial Court regarding entitlement of compensation by the plaintiff for acquiring his land for formation of a road. 28. Now, the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the reasonable compensation awarded to the plaintiff or not. It is a fact that corporation laid road in the land of plaintiff to an extent of 869 sq.yards. Plaintiff has claimed compensation @ Rs.450/- to Rs.500/- per square yard. The same is also stated by the plaintiff in his evidence that the value of each square yard is Rs.450/- to Rs.500/-. 29. No doubt, P.Ws.2 and 3 also stated so, but for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, no valuation certificate from registrar office to show the actual value of each square yard pertaining to the land in Survey Nos.187/4, 187/10 and 187/11 as Rs.450/- to Rs.500/- in particularly in the year, 1992. 30. No document or otherwise nor any piece of paper filed by the plaintiff to shows that the site of the plaintiff valued at Rs.450/- to Rs.500/- per square yard. Without any documentary proof seeking compensation at Rs.450/- to Rs.500/- per square yards is not tenable under law. 31. No doubt, P.W.2, who said to have resided in the locality of Atchutapuram Railway gate, Kakinada, deposed that he knows the schedule property and it is at a distance of half kilometer from his house and at his house, land value is Rs.450/- to Rs.500/- per square yard. But no document from P.W.2 to accept his testimony nor even any piece of paper at least to show the value of the land at his house. 32. But no document from P.W.2 to accept his testimony nor even any piece of paper at least to show the value of the land at his house. 32. The plaintiff also examined one Y.Ratnarao as P.W.3, who said to be maintained welding shop in Karnam Centre and the schedule property is at a distance of half kilometer from his shop and he deposed that the land in question valued at Rs.500/- per square yard in that locality. But, admittedly, he was not purchased any land in the said locality nor filed any document to support his oral testimony. 33. No iota of trustworthy evidence or piece of paper to accept that the value of the site in that locality is at Rs.450/- to Rs.500/- per square yard in particularly in the year, 1992 as contented by P.Ws.1 to 3. So, without any tenable material on record, this Court is unable to accept that the value of the land in question is at Rs.450/- to Rs.500/- at the relevant time as contended by the plaintiff. 34. In alternatively, the plaintiff states that he sought alternative site and he also issued Ex.A.3 legal notice by seeking alternative site. But no reply was given. It is contended by the defendant that no alternative site is available at that point to time. 35. So far as reasonable compensation is concerned, the trial Court valued at Rs.48 per square yard by calculating at twelve (12) times increase from 1980 to 1992, because Ex.A.5 is the vendor title deed of the year, 1949 and at that time value of each cent is around Rs.12/- and in the year, 1980, he purchased each cent was at Rs.195/- i.e., Rs.4/- per square yard. So, the trial Court rightly fixed the value by increasing twelve (12) times of the land value i.e., each cent was valued at Rs.2,340/- and in-total Rs.42,120/- for 869 sq.yards, which is equivalent to Ac.0.18 cents, awarded towards compensation. Now, this Court has no material to finds fault in the conclusion and calculations arrived by the trial Court in awarding reasonable compensation to the plaintiff and as discussed supra there is no material to show the value as Rs.450/- to Rs.500/- per square yard by the year, 1992 and not even filed any valuation certificate to show the actual value of the land. As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court having considered the facts and circumstances and material on record rightly awarded an amount of Rs.42,120/- to the plaintiff towards compensation for the land acquired by the municipal corporation in the year, 1992. 36. In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the well-articulated judgment and decree of the trial Court. Therefore, there are no merits in this appeal and as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 37. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the decree and judgment dated 10.10.2001 in O.S.No.39 of 1994 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. There shall be no order as to costs. 38. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. 39. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.