DUDA 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: To issue a writ, order of directions, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 8 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam (now known as IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam) as being wholly without jurisdiction, illegal and violative of A.P. Slum Improvement (Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956 and falling within the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ramchander Rai.

(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 Visakhapatnam 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 judgment 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 judgment dated 18-12-1995, was dismissed. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the said judgment before this Court in S.A.No. 113 of 1996, for the second appeal by judgment dated 17-1-2003, was dismissed confirming the judgment under appeal. Now, the petitioner seeks to assail the judgment 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: The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the Notification issued by the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 177, Housing, dated 27-8-1962, declaring Velampeta as a slum, Velampeta slum absolutely vested in the Corporation, and that unless and until the person aggrieved had successfully challenged the said Notification, he could not have maintained the suit, and more so when Section 13 of the A.P. Slum (Improvement of Land) Act, 1956, bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court in respect of slums. Inasmuch as respondent No. 2 had not at all challenged the Notification declaring Velampeta as a slum, Velampeta absolutely vested in the Corporation and it became the owner thereof, and as such, the suit at the instance of respondent No. 2, could not have been maintained, and therefore, the judgment and decree dated 27-4-1992 passed by the IV Additional District Munsif, Visakhapatnam, in the suit O.S.No. 8 of 1998 filed by respondent No. 2, being ab initio void, is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court in exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction.

(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.