Dismissed

Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur, v. Parripati Padmaja

Andhra Pradesh HC30 Jan 2024AS/870/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiffs sought declaration of title and injunction over two plots claimed by Guntur Municipal Corporation as reserved open spaces in an approved layout. DW.2 admitted no survey was conducted; boundaries did not match the layout's open spaces. Appeal dismissed; trial court decree confirming plaintiffs' title stood confirmed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur, Vs Parripati… — Land Acquisition | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

¶2

APPEAL SUIT No.870 of 2010

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The appellant-Guntur Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner laid the challenge under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) impugning the judgment dated 18.07.2006 of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur in O.S.No.190 of 2004. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein were the plaintiffs who filed O.S.No.190 of 2004.

¶5

The prayer in the said suit was for declaration of their title over the plaint schedule properties and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the Municipal Corporationdefendant from interfering with plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties. After due trial, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and granted all the reliefs as against the defendant-Municipal Corporation. Aggrieved by that, the appellant-Municipal Corporation presented this appeal.

¶6

Heard arguments of Sri M.Manohar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for appellant-Guntur Municipal Corporation.

¶7

2 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.No.870 of 2010

¶8

For respondents, Sri G.Ramesh Babu, the learned counsel submitted arguments.

¶9

On scrutiny of the entire record and the impugned judgment and the rival submissions on both sides, the following points fall for consideration in this appeal:

¶10

Whether the plaint schedule properties are reserve open spaces in the approved layout plan No.52 of 1972 or not?

¶11

Whether the impugned judgment is erroneous on facts and law?

¶12

Point Nos.1 and 2:

¶13

A vacant site in an extent of 653 square yards (item No.1) and another vacant site of an extent of 632 square yards (item No.2) are shown in the plaint schedule and they are stated to be contiguous to each other. As per the averments in the plaint and the description of the plaint schedule, there is an approved layout plan No.52 of 1972 concerning land in D.No.5 in an extent of Ac.12.28 cents in Koritepadu Village of Guntur Municipal area, Ward No.18, Block No.23, T.S.No.1749/1, 2. Specific boundaries for each of these two plots are given. In the

¶14

3 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.No.870 of 2010

¶15

plaint, it was alleged that in the name of each of these plaintiffs their mother Smt. K.Saraswathi purchased these properties under a registered sale deed dated 16.11.1981 and since then these plaintiffs became absolute owners of these properties. The vendors were Sri G.Kodanda Rama Raju and Sri Atchuta Rama Raju. The vendors of plaintiffs had purchased these properties under a registered sale deed dated 04.05.1980 and 14.09.1981 from one Chebrolu Hari Prasada Rao.

¶16

While the plaintiffs have been owning this property and indulged in a little ground work to materialize their ambition to construct a residential building in the said property, officers of Municipal Corporation interfered and claimed that the property belonged to Guntur Municipal Corporation. It is in those circumstances they laid the suit praying for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and title holders over the plaint schedule properties and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant-Municipal Corporation and its men from in any way interfering with or causing obstructions to the plaintiffs in their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said properties.

¶17

¶18

Dr. VRKS, J A.S.No.870 of 2010

¶19

In response to it, Guntur Municipal Corporation filed its written statement wherein the plaint mentioned allegations are denied as incorrect and expressed its ignorance about the alleged purchase made by the plaintiffs from their respective vendors. It then stated that as mentioned in the plaint in D.No.5 for an extent of Ac.5.46 cents there was an approved layout plan No.52 of 72 which was subsequently revised in L.P.No.10 of 84. The said layout was approved in the name of Sri Ch.Hanumaiah and his brothers. As per the original as well as revised layout, the suit schedule plots fall within the reserve open space in the layout. Under the law the reserve open spaces vested with the Municipal Corporation. Sale and purchase of these properties is irregular. The plaint mentioned the sale transactions did not take place with the approval of Municipality and the Government. This defendant has a duty to protect its properties. Since the plaint schedule properties fall within the reserve space that stood vested with the defendant, the prayers in the plaint cannot be granted and the suit has to be dismissed.

¶20

On these rival pleadings, learned trial Court settled the following issues for its consideration:

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.870 of 2010

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration and for consequential permanent injunction as prayed for?

¶25

To what relief?

¶26

At the trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, their power of attorney deposed as PW.1 and an independent witness testified as PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of the Municipal Corporation, initially its Town Planning Supervisor filed the examination-in-chief by way of an affidavit as DW.1. However, as the witness did not appear for cross-examination, the evidence of DW.1 was eschewed by the trial Court. Thereafter the defendant got examined its Town Planning Surveyor as DW.2 and Exs.B.1 to B.8 were marked.

¶27

On assessing the entire evidence and on considering the submissions made on both sides, the learned trial Court believed the evidence led by plaintiffs and held all the issues in their favour and decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by it, the Guntur Municipal Corporation preferred the present appeal.

¶28

In the memorandum of grounds, it is urged and the learned Standing Counsel fervently argued the following contentions:

Dr. VRKS, J

A.S.No.870 of 2010

The Court below failed to notice that the assertion of title by plaintiffs on the basis of sale deeds Exs.A1 to A4 is permissible and binding on their vendors and predecessors in title, but not binding against the appellant herein.

¶33

The Court below ought to have noticed that the plaintiffs have failed in establishing title as against defendants by pleadings and proving that the suit schedule properties are not within the reserved open spaces of the approved layout.

¶34

The Court below grossly erred in assessing, ascertaining and identifying the location of the suit schedule properties as per Exs.A1 to A4 in the approved layout as per Exs.B7 and B8 and thereby recorded a wrong finding that the suit schedule site is not part of reserved open space as earmarked in Exs.B7 and B8.

¶35

The Court below failed to notice that the defendant/appellant has examined DW.2 only for the purpose of presenting and marking Exs.B7 and B8 and to depose with reference to the information as available in

¶36

7 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.No.870 of 2010

¶37

Exs.B7 and B8 and that the role of such official witness is not to depose on personal views and that the oral evidence of DW.2 to the extent as depicted by official records viz., Exs.B7 and B8 alone would bind the defendant/appellant for the purpose of drawing necessary inferences.

¶38

The trial Court ought to have noticed that any omission or commission of any officials of the defendant Corporation for the purpose of realizing vacant tax land from private vacant lands would not confer title to such individuals and take away the character of reserved open spaces intended to be used for communal purposes and for benefit of the residents of the colony while not disturbing the title of the Municipal Corporation over such reserved open spaces so earmarked while approving the layout as per statutory provisions.

¶39

It is for these reasons, the learned counsel urges to upset the impugned judgment.

¶40

As against it, the learned counsel for respondents/ plaintiffs submit that on proper assessment of the evidence, the

¶41

8 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.No.870 of 2010

¶42

trial Court reached to appropriate conclusions and the grounds urged and the grounds argued failed to indicate any error of fact or law on part of the trial Court and from the evidence on record, the view taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable. When the impugned judgment is not unreasonable in the given facts and circumstances then there could be no warrant for this Court to interfere. Learned counsel urges for dismissal of the appeal.

¶43

This Court has gone through the entire material on record. It is to be stated that Exs.A.3 and A.4 are the certified copies of sale deeds of the year 1981 indicating purchase of properties by the plaintiffs from their vendors. These documents indicate it is the plaint schedule properties that were transacted with under those documents. Since it is a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiffs were obliged to prove the title of their vendors. It is for that purpose, the witnesses deposed and the plaintiffs tendered Exs.A.1 and A.2 which are the certified copies of sale deeds of their vendors indicating that their vendors purchased those properties from the earlier title holders. Thus, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.4 clearly disclosed that way back in the year 1981 plaintiffs had

¶44

9 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.No.870 of 2010

¶45

purchased plaint schedule properties and since then they continued to hold their title over these properties. In the written statement, defendant-Municipal Corporation stated that it was not aware of alienations referred to in the plaint. During crossexamination of PWs.1 and 2 or during the evidence of DW.2 no other fact has been brought on record to show any falsity in Exs.A.1 to A.4. In these circumstances, the observations of the trial Court that the plaintiffs established their title over the plaint schedule properties must be approved as correct.

¶46

It is common ground on both sides that at the behest of Sri Hanumaiah and his brothers layout plan No.52 of 72 was approved by the Municipal Corporation and Urban Development Authority. As per the plaint allegations, the plaint schedule properties are part of this approved layout. Even according to Municipal Corporation, the plaint schedule properties are part of this approved layout. The only controversy is whether the plaint schedule properties fall within the reserve open spaces mentioned in the approved layout/Exs.B.7 and B.8. If they fall within the reserve open spaces, then the legality of the title of the plaintiffs requires further consideration. If the plaint schedule properties do not fall within the reserve open space of

¶47

this approved layout, then there could be no reason for the Guntur Municipal Corporation to question the title and activities of the plaintiffs/respondents on those properties. Who is more capable of proving the disputed fact as to whether plaint schedule properties fall within reserve open spaces or not? According to plaintiffs, they are not within reserve open spaces. According to defendant-Municipal Corporation, they are within reserve open spaces. Since it is the Municipal Corporation which asserted that the plaint schedule properties are part of reserve open spaces, the burden lies on it to prove the said contention. That is the crux of the dispute. It was to prove its own case, the Municipal Corporation got examined DW.2, the Town Planning Surveyor. Exs.B.1 to B.6 are the registered sale deeds of the year 1970 pertaining to those people at whose behest the layout plan was presented for approval. On that aspect there has been no controversy between the parties. Exs.B.7 and B.8 are the original layout and the revised layout. Therefore, the focus should be to see whether these documents and the evidence of DW.2 had disclosed that the plaint schedule properties could be said to fall within the reserve open spaces or not. Learned trial Court bestowed keen attention on this aspect

¶48

11 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.No.870 of 2010

¶49

and extensively discussed the relevant evidence and recorded its reasons at paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the impugned judgment. The recitals in Exs.A.1 to A.4 produced by the plaintiffs do indicate and the evidence of DW.2 shows an admission that the sale transactions contained in Exs.A.1 to A.4 were completed after obtaining clearance from ULC authorities. Thus, plaintiffs and their vendors, as normal citizens, did what all they were expected to do under law and what all they were capable of doing. After complying with all the legal provisions, they transacted with the properties as mentioned in Exs.A.1 to A.4. Thus, to that extent, no illegality could be attributed to the transactions covered by Exs.A.1 to A.4. After referring to Ex.Aseries documents and after referring to approved layout plans under Exs.B.7 and B.8, DW.2 was asked during his crossexamination as to whether the plaint schedule properties fall within the reserve open spaces or not. The response of DW.2 was that he could not say whether plaint schedule properties fall within the reserve open spaces of the approved layout or not. He further said that he was never asked to conduct a survey concerning plaint schedule properties to conclude whether they fall within the reserve open spaces or not. That

¶50

12 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.No.870 of 2010

¶51

clinches the fact in favour of respondents/plaintiffs. This aspect of the matter was properly considered by the trial Court. A perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the learned trial Court was also prudent enough to decide the disputed fact in a different manner. It referred to boundaries mentioned for plaint schedule properties. It then referred to the red marked open spaces shown by the defendant in the approved layouts and examined the boundaries for that red marked spaces. After conducting all that exercise, the learned trial Court had stated that for the plaint schedule properties the boundary on east is D.No.6 whereas the boundary as per Ex.B.8 for the red marked open space is a road. That variation is a matter of fact available from record and that variation was never explained by DW.2. In such circumstances, the learned trial Court was right in concluding that what the Municipal Corporation was claiming based on the layout enclosed marked under Exs.B.7 and B.8 is different from plaint schedule properties. Therefore, the findings of the trial Court that the plaint schedule properties are not part of the reserve open spaces mentioned in the approved layout in Exs.B.7 and B.8 is appropriate.

¶52

13 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.No.870 of 2010

¶53

Then the question arises as to why the Municipal Corporation was raising its objections when the plaintiffs were indulging in some sort of activity on their own properties. The answer could be seen from some of the facts elicited through the mouth of DW.2 during his cross-examination. This witness was

¶54

telling the Court that the vacant land holders had to pay tax and some of them were not paying taxes and in such circumstances, Municipal Corporation was keeping boards at those places maintaining that those vacant sites belonged to the Municipal Corporation. Witness said that it was to drive the tax payers to pay the tax such boards were erected during the year 2001. On such evidence, the learned trial Court found material to observe that it was for that reason the plaintiffs were driven to file the suit for declaration of title.

¶55

The contention of the learned counsel for appellant that Exs.A.1 to A.4 cannot be read against the appellant/defendant has no substance. It is seen from the record that how the plaintiffs have been drawing their title under Exs.A.1 to A.4 is never in dispute. Appellant-Municipal Corporation believes its title only on the premise that the properties covered by Exs.A.3 and A.4 fall within vacant open spaces of the approved layout.

¶56

14 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.No.870 of 2010

¶57

When once it was found that the plaint schedule properties covered by Exs.A.3 and A.4 are not part of vacant spaces mentioned in Exs.B.7 and B.8-layout plans and in the absence of any evidence contrary to Exs.A.1 to A.4, the title of the plaintiffs stood unrebutted. Therefore, this contention of the appellant is negatived. The grounds urged have no merit. The findings of the trial Court are appropriate on facts and law. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment impugned. All the points are held against the appellant and in favour of the respondents.

¶58

In the result, this Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 18.07.2006 of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur in O.S.No.190 of 2004 stands confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶60

_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J

¶61

Date: 31.01.2024 Ivd

¶62

15 Dr. VRKS, J A.S.No.870 of 2010

¶63

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

¶64

APPEAL SUIT No.870 of 2010

¶65

Date: 31.01.2024

¶66

Ivd

Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur, v. Parripati Padmaja

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur, v. Parripati Padmaja

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Venkatarathnam and 3 Others Vs P.B.Venkatraidu and 2 Others

Padala Sarada, Vs Panchadula Rama Mohana Rao

Mohammad Ismail Shariff Vs Puttareddy Surendranath Reddy

Manchikalapati Balaji Singh (Died) Vs Manchikalapati Radha Rani

Akki Tirupathaiah Vs Yedlapalli Subba Rao

Pasala Lakshmi Tulsi Vs Chode Tulasamma