RAJAGOPAL Vs. NELLORE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a typical case in which the parties are arrayed against each other for a sum of Rs. 156/-which the respondent herein contends that it is entitled to claim and recover as betterment contribution from the appallant and the appellant resists it. The long and chequared history of this dispute, which started in the year 1997, demanded attention of the First Additional District Munsif, Ncllore in O.S. 314/77, of ibe Additional District Judge, Nellore, in Appeal Suit No. 162/78 and of this Court in the present appeal. Tha erudition of the laaraed counsel ably representing the parties on either side and the Ability of the judges in resolving this seemingly triffing dispute are put to test in this casa.

(2.) Plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal A suit was filed before the 1st Additional District Munsif, Nellore, in O.S, 314/77 seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-Municipal council, from collecting Rs. 156/- by way of additional betterment contribution from the appellant. The trial Court, after framing appropriate issues, held the matter in favour of the appellant nnd decreed the suit granting a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff restaraining ilia defendant-Municipal Council, from collecting Rs. 156/- by way of additional beltennent contribution from the appellant. Against the judgment of the trial court, the defendant filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Nellore in Appeal Suit No. 162/ 78 challenging the correctness of the decision of the trial court in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge Nellore reversed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the suit, It is against the learned Additional District Judge, Nellore, that the appel lant filed this appeal in this Court.

(3.) It would appear that the State Government sanctioned a scheme for extension of the Nellor etrunk road on the eastern side. The town planing scheme was sanctioned by the State Government under Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Town Planning Act, 1920 (Act VII of 1920) (Hereinafter for short referred to as 'the Act'). It is common ground that the State Government appointed an arbitrator after ths scheme has been sanctioned for discharging certain duties as per Section 27 of the Act. The arbitrator is inter alia empowered under clause (d) of Section 27 of the Act to determine, in reference to the claims made, the properties which are liable to the betterment contribution under Section 23 and estimate and record their market value at the date of the notification. The arbitrator appointed by the Court entered upon his duties. On 15-6-1957 a notice was issued to the appellant requiring him to pay betterment contribution in terms of Sec. 20 of the Act m respect of 25 1/4 ankanams of land. It is not clear from the pleadings what happened subsequent to this notice. There was apparently no responsc from the appellant till 1974. A second notice was isiued on 22-2-1974 requiring the appellant to pay betterment contribution in respect of 33 1/2 ankanaras of land, as against the extent of 25 1/4 specified in the notice originally issued on 15-6-1957. It appears that the appellant did not respond to this notice either. A third notice was issued on 7-1-1976 reiterting the earlier claim for payment of betterment contribution in respect of 33 1/2 ankanams of land. After the receipt of the third notice, the appellant seems to have objected to the mention of the extent of land ax 33 1/2 aukanams and claimed that the actual extent is only 25 1/4 ankanams. The extent of land as 25 1/4 ankanams was arrived at with reference to the documents in the possession of the appellant. It is not in dispute that the appellant was the owner of the house and site bearing No. 254 in Ward No. 15, Brindava nam, Nellore town. The said property was purchased by his uncle and at the time when it was originally purchased under the registered sale deed dated 22-7-1935. it consisted of 811/2 ankanams. It is claimed that out of this land, 56 1/4 ankanams of land was sold by the appellant's uncle in 1936 to one Arra Bramaramba under a registered Rale deed dated 27-1-1936. These two sale deeds are marked as Exts. A 1 and A-2 respectively. After the sale of 56 1/4 ankanams. The balance of land left was only 251/4 ankanams. It is with reference to this land that the adpellant claimed that the betterment contribution could be lavied and not with reference to the extent of 33 1/2 ankanams specified in the notice dated 22-2-1974 and reiterated in the notice dated 7-1-1976. In view of the objection regarding tho extent of the land, it is claimed by the appellant that the arbitrator referred the admesurement of the land to Sri Kanta Rao and two others. It was contended that these persons, at the instance of the arbitrator, measured the land and ascertained the same to be 25 1/4 ankanams. After (he ascertainment of ihe extent nf the l.ind as above, the appellant contends that he executed an egreement in favour of the defendant-Municipality agreeing to pay betterment contribution in respect of 25 1/4 ankanams of land. This agreement, dt. 11 3-1976 is marked as Exts. B-1. Ths appeallant further agreed that (ha betterment contribution would be paid on the above extent of 25 1/4 ankanams of land at Rs. 12/ - per ankanam. After giving credit for the payments already made, the appellant had to pay a further sum of Rs. 204/- and he agreed to pay the above mentioned sum in three instalments of Rs. 68/- each. Accordingly one instalment of Rs. 68/- was paid on 11-3-1976 the date when the agreement was executed; second instalment was paid in August 1976 and the third instalment was paid on 21-2-1977. In the agreement dated 11-3-1976 executed by the appellant, it is stated that the enquiry under the Act for determination of betterment contribution may be withdrawn in view of the appellant's agreement to pay the betterment contribution as abovestated. It is claimed that the matter as concluded above gave a quietus to the issue and the entire proceeding should have ended there.