STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. KONERU SURYANARAYANA ARID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree in O S. No. 67 of 1953 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Masulipatam. The suit was brought by Koneru Suryanarayana and Vemulapalli Subbayya (respondents 1 and 2 in the present appeal) on behalf of all the owners of the lands covered by patta No. 50 of Bobberlanka village claiming possession of an extent of 32 acres of land marked in the colour yellow in the plan attached to the plaint on the ground that the said land was a lateral accretion to their pre-existing lands situate in an Island in the Krishna river. The first defendant to the action is the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Collector, Krishna The 7th defendant is the Field- Labour Co-operative Society, Kokkiligadda, permitted by the first defendant to occupy whole or portions of the disputed land Defendants 2 to 6 are office-bearers of the said co-operative society.

(2.) The plaintiffs are all residents of the Bobberlanka village. Their lands included in patta No. 50 are situate in an island to the west of the village Bobberlanka The plaintiffs claim that at that point the Krishna river is non-tidal, non-navigable and fordable., that their patta lands originally comprised of an extent of 199 acres and through a process of erosion of the river large portions of their lands got submerged under water, with the result that in the re-survey of 1923 their holdings had dwindled to 50 acres in extent, that nevertheless, they were paying full assessment of Rs. 700, that in order to prevent further erosion of their lands by the fluvial action of the river in S. No. 4, they took preventive steps by planting ' Rellu ' grass, that as a result from about 7 years prior to the suit a sand bank commenced to form, abutting the eastern edge of S No 4, and that by the accumulation of the silt on the sand bank there was an accession in the area of S No 4 by about the year 1950 or 1951. It is alleged by them further that, in 1952 the Government leased out the disputed land for cutting the ' Rellu' grass and had also permitted others to enter upon it. The plaintiffs claim that the accreted land belong to them and upon that footing have asked for possession.

(3.) The first defendant has filed an elaborate written statement, resisting the claim of the plaintiffs on various grounds It is alleged that at Bobberlanka the Krishna river is both tidal and navigable, that the bed of the river vests in the Government, that in the survey of 1923 it was found that the patta land of the plaintiffs consisted only of 166-34 acres and that that survey had become final and conclusive It is also alleged that by 1923 survey it was found that portions of R S Nos 4 and 5 of an extent of 17-33 acres were submerged under water, and the same not having been relinquished by the plaintiffs was surveyed as R S No 14 and designated as river poramboke The first defendant-Government states that the extent of 17-33 acres aforesaid, which pertains to R S. Nos. 4 and 5, was restored to the plaintiffs and the remaining extent of 45-91 acres was demarcated in two lots, Nos. 14 and 15. The first defendant denies that the plaintiffs are entitled to any land more than what was given to them in the manner aforesaid. The Government denies that the suit lands are accretions to the plaintiffs' land by gradual means. The allegation in the plaint that the plaintiffs had taken protective measures had been in express terms denied. The Government asserts that it was perfectly entitled to deal with the suit land and auction the right to cut the ' Rellu ' grass therein in fasli 1362 The first defendant has also raised the plea that by applying for lease-hold rights in the suit lands the plaintiffs are estopped from putting forward the present claim and also that the suit as framed is not maintainable The second defendant filed a written statement substantially adopting the contentions of the first defendant and defendants 3 to 7 have adopted the pleas contained in the written statement of the second defendant. Upon those contentions, the trial Court framed the following issues :- "(1) Whether the suit land is an accretion to the plaintiff's patta land, and whether the accretion is gradual, slow and imperceptible, and if so, what is the extent to which the plaintiffs are entitled ? (2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to sue for possession in a representative capacity ? (3) Whether the river Krishna is navigable and tidal at the place wherein the suit land is situated ? (4) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by reason of the statement dated I2th September, 1952?" The learned Subordinate Judge held on issue 1 that the disputed land was an accretion by gradual means, but that the accretion was not only to R S. Nos. 4 and 5, but also to the Government land in R S. Nos. 6 and 15, and that, therefore, the plaintifis are entitled to the lands adjacent to R.S. Nos. 4 and 5 only. On issue 2, he held that the plaintiffs were entitled to sue in a representative capacity by reason of the order passed in I A. No 921 of 1953, which had become final. On issue 3, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the river Krishna at the situs of the suit lanka is navigable, but not tidal On issue 4, it was held that the estoppel pleaded by the defendants had not been made out. In view of his findings on issue 1, the trial Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for demarcation and separate possession of the accreted land adjacent to and contiguous with R S Nos. 4 and 5. Against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge, the State of Andhra Pradesh has preferred A S No 479 of 1958 The plaintiffs have preferred A S. No. 144 of 1959 in respect of the portion of their claim that had been disallowed These appeals have been argued together before me. I shall now take up for consideration the appeal filed by the Government.