K. MANGAMMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants having failed to obtain a decree declaring their ownership over the suit schedule land and recovery of possession filed the appeal. For the purpose of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS originally filed O.S.No.60 of 1983 on the file of the IV -Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Subsequently, it has been re -numbered as O.S.No.679 of 1985. The suit is in respect of 0.75 cents of land in Sy.No.166/1, which is shown as Town Survey No.44/2 in Town Planning Records. Originally, the suit was for declaring the plaintiffs as the lawful owners of the suit schedule property. Alleging that the plaintiffs have been dispossessed subsequent to the suit, the plaint was amended vide orders in I.A.No.349 of 1983, dated 21 -09 -1983, further seeking relief of recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. Similarly, the suit, which is originally filed against R.1/D.1, was subsequently amended impleading R.2 and R.3 as D.2 and D.3 vide orders in I.A.No.67 of 1985, dated 22 -04 -1986.

(3.) ON behalf of the Government, the 1st defendant viz., Tahasildar, Secunderabad, filed written statement with the following averments: - The land, admeasuring 3264 sq. mts., falling in Ward No.88, Block No.B, Town Survey No.44/2 of Somajiguda village, Secunderabad taluk, is a Government land. The alleged vendor of the sale deed dt.01.09.1960, had no manner of right, title or interest over the suit land. Therefore, the sale deed is bad in law and not binding on the defendants, as no person can pass a better title than what he possessed. Further, according to the plaintiffs they have purchased the open land and house bearing H.No.6 -3 -901, in Sy.No.166/1 of Khairatabad village. The suit land in question is situated in Somajiguda village. Hence, there is a mistake in identifying the suit schedule property. Apart from that, there is no mention in the sale deed about the open land and also about the survey number, as claimed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, it is clear that the suit schedule property is totally separate than the House bearing No.6 -3 -901. It is further submitted that in the Town Survey Records of Somajiguda village, the suit land is recorded as Government land, which is in possession of the Government itself. Further, the declaration either before the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities or any authority does not confer any right, title over the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs. The alleged sanction of mutation is based on the wrong information furnished by the plaintiffs, which is bad in law and liable to be cancelled. It is further submitted that in order to prevent illegal encroachments, the defendant - authorities have demarcated the land and fixed the fencing to the extent of the land owned by the Government only, and not in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.166/1 of Khairatabad village. Hence, the alleged dispossession or interference into the possession of the plaintiffs land does not arise. The suit is liable to be dismissed for want of mandatory notice under Sec.80 CPC. It is further alleged that the valuation of the suit schedule property made by the plaintiffs is not correct, and therefore seeks a direction to the plaintiffs to value the suit on the basis of the present market value and to pay the deficit Court fee thereon.