DUBA RAJU Vs. VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter is listed for orders of this Court as to the maintainability of the writ petition. The petitioner filed this writ petition, which is at the stage of SR, for issuance of the following relief:

(2.) The facts of the case may briefly be noted, and they run as thus: The petitioner is inhabitant of a slum known as Velampeta Slum, falling within the jurisdiction of Viskahapatnam Municipal Corporation (for short 'the Corporation). According to the petitioner, the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide G.O. Ms. No. 177, Housing, dated 27-8-1962 issued Notification extending the provisions of the A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 to Velampeta also, and by reason thereof, no person is entitled to lay any claim in respect of the property in the slum, unless he successfully challenged the said Notification.While so, it is the case of the petitioner, that respondent No.2 instituted several civil suits in respect of certain pieces of land in Velampeta slum as belonging to him, and one such suit being O.S. No. 8 of 1988 on the file of the IV Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, was instituted against the petitioner, for his eviction therefrom. The said suit on contest, by judgement and decree dated 27-4-1992, was decreed in favour of respondent No. 2. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 78 of 1992 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, which by judgement dated 18-12-1995, was dismissed. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the said judgement before this Court in S.A. No. 113 of 1996, for the second appeal by judgement dated 17-1-2003, was dismissed confirming the judgement under appeal. Now, the petitioner seeks to assail the judgement dated 27-4-1992 passed in the suit O.S. No. 8 of 1988 by the IV Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, on the following grounds:

(3.) He further submits that though the petitioner had filed written statement in the suit filed by respondent No.2, he failed to bring the factum of the Corporation having become the owner of the slum pursuant to the issuance of Notification by the Government declaring Velampeta as a slum, and had respondent No. 2 made the Corporation a party defendant to the suit, the fact that the Corporation being the owner of Velampeta slum, would have been brought to the notice of the Court, the Court would not have entertained the suit and the petitioner would not have suffered a decree.