SANAPALA SREEDHARUDU Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioners 1 to 24 herein are the Respondents 2 to 22 in OP No.48 of 1980 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The petitioners herein have filed this writ petition questioning the correctness or otherwise the findings of the District Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 6-3-1982 passed in OP No.48 of 1980 to the extent of apportioning the compensation deposited by the APSEB represented by its Chairman, Vidyut Soudha, Hyderabad and the Assistant Executive Engineer, TLC Sub-Station, APSEB Visakhapatnam, who are petitioners in OP.No.48 of 1980 at 3:1 ratio among the Respondent No. 1; namely, the Executive Officer, Simhachalam Devasthanam, Simhachalam on the one hand and Respondents 2 to 22 therein on the other hand and that seeking mandamus to declare that the petitioners are entitled to receive the entire amount of Rs.2,50,000/- deposited towards compensation in respect of the trees cut and removed by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, represented by its Chairman, Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad and its Assistant Executive Engineer, TLC Sub-Station, APSEB Visakhapatnam, who are Respondents 2 and 3 herein, on the lands in Survey Nos.294, 295, ?98 and 290 of Adivivaram survey near Madhavadra, Visakhapatnam district.

(2.) The petitioners submit that the learned District Judge, Visakhapatnam, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, passed the judgment dated 6-3-1982 in OP No.48 of 1980, apportioning the compensation between R-1 on the one hand and R-2 to R-22 therein on the other hand at 3:1 ratio. So far as R-21 is concerned, as it was admitted that the costs of one Neredu tree was yet to be paid by the petitioners therein. So far as R-22 is concerned, the cost of one Sampangi tree was to be paid by the petitioner therein. According to the rates previously fixed by the Government, and according to which the petitioners had to deposit the amounts, the petitioners were directed to deposit the amounts for those two trees into the Court and R-21 and R-22 would be entitled to receive for the amounts so deposited in the ratio of 3:1.

(3.) The facts of the case are as follows: The Zamindar of Vijayanagaram granted about 1500 acres of land to the ancestors of the petitioners in 1795 A.C. During the British regime a settlement had been effected and Inam title deed was granted for 1426 acres in 1863 by the Inam Commissioner - Mr. J.N. Taylor. Again in 1903, the entire land was surveyed at the instance of the-then British Government by Mr. S. W. Gilman, Special Agent to the Government. The original grant called "Madhavadhara Mukhasa" was divided by separating clear land in the name of 'Madhavadhara' and the hill and hill slopes were separated and called 'Adivivaram' Village. The land situated in Survey Nos.294, 295, 298 and 290 are part of Adivivaram Village. The said lands had been in uninterrupted possession of the predecessors- in-interest of the petitioners and thereafter they have been in the possession of the petitioners. It is stated that during the period of their ancestors, they raised the fruit bearing trees and during the period of their grand fathers and fathers, they removed the old trees and planted fresh trees in their place. It is stated that they have been enjoying exclusively the usufruct of the said trees existing in the said land continuously. The village being a separate 'Mokhasa' forming part of "Madhavadhara Mokasa" evenafter passing of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estate (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 settlement operations were not taken up as left out from the main Vizianagaram Zamindari Estate, though they were entitled to Ryotwari pattas in respect of the said land. In 1929, Simhachalam Devasthanam filed suits; namely, OS Nos.302, 303 and 308 of 1929 claiming the rights over the lands and the said suits were ultimately dismissed holding that the petitioners are having the title over the said lands. In 1978, the second respondent Andhra Pradesh Electricity Board through the third respondent laid Transmission Line of high tension from Simhachalam Sub-Station to Gajuvaka Sub-Station without touching Visakhapatnam City and the said Transmission Line has to pass through the lands of Adivivaram Village belonging to 12 members of Sanapala family. For the said purpose, the valuable fruit bearing trees belonging to the petitioners were cut away. Therefore, they claimed compensation for the said trees, which were valued by the Respondents 2 and 3 at Rs.2,50,000/-. While the petitioners are claiming the entire compensation, the first respondent-Devasthanam also claimed the same. The said dispute was agitated before the District Court, Visakhapatnam in OP No.48 of 1980 under the provisions of Section 16(4) of the Telegraph Act, 1885 read with Section 42 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. As some of the original claimants died, their legal representatives were also added in the claim-petition. It is also submitted that the ancestors of the petitioners as well as the petitioners have been being in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the lands in question subject to payment of Rs.44/- per year as Kattubadi, which is being paid regularly to the Devasthanam till the estate was taken over and that they having planted and protected the fruit bearing trees, the first respondent-Devasthanam has no right over the trees or the fruits. It is further submitted that the learned District Judge who enquired into OP No.48 of 1980 did not give proper effect to the extracts made in the Inam Fair Register and Inam Statement, which were marked under Ex.B7 and Ex.B8. Accordingly, the learned District Judge misconstrued the effect of the oral and documentary evidence, which establishes that the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment over the lands by raising gardens and are having exclusive rights over the trees. While surprisingly the learned District Judge held that out of the entire compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- deposited by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, the Devasthanam is entitled to 3/4th and the petitioners are entitled to 1/4th only which is erroneous. It is further submitted that against the said order dated 6-3-1982 passed in OP No.48 of 1980 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Visakhapatnam, they filed CRP No.1269 of 1982 under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to revise the said order dated 6-3-1982 passed in OP No.48 of 1980. The Revision Petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 5-6-1989 holding that the finality having been attached to the award of the District Judge, no revision lies to the High Court against the award passed by the District Judge, Visakhapatnam. Even the request of the learned Counsel for the petitioners was that they may be permitted to convert the revision petition into one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the same rejected observing that it is open to the petitioners to pursue such other remedies as are available to them in law. Hence, this writ petition.