GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. G NARENDRA PRASSAD RAMA KOTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the sixth defendant in O.S.No.68 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda. It is aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2003 In I.A.No.275 of 2003 in O.S.No.68 of 2002 passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, whereby and whereunder the application made by the petitioner herein under Order XXXIX Rule 3B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), as amended by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, for compensation, was dismissed, Inter alia on the ground that the petitioner herein failed to produce any documentary evidence in proof of the damages suffered by It.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the Gram Panchayat. The first respondent (hereinafter called, the plaintiff) was granted the quarry lease for sand in Reach No.17 (Srikakulam Reach), which was within the territorial limits of the petitioner-Gram Panchayat. The lease was for a period of two years. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.68 of 2002 alleging that after expiry of lease on 01.10.2002 the lease was extended for another period of two years and that defendants 1 to 5 (respondents 2 to 6 herein) are Interfering with the quarrying operations. The trial Court granted ad interim injunction in an application, being I.A.No.445 of 2002, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. It appears, subsequently, the petitioner-Gram Panchayat got impleaded as sixth defendant alleging that it is entitled to a proportionate share in the lease amount paid by the plaintiff and as the plaintiff is quarrying illegally even after expiry of lease period, it is a necessary party to the suit. Be that as it is, the petitioner filed W.P.No.5525 of 2003 presumably for a similar relief and this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, to dispose of the suit within three weeks. At that stage, the plaintiff sought leave of the trial Court and the suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.06.2003. The petitioner then filed I.A.No.275 of 2003 claiming compensation under Order XXXIX Rule 3B of CPC for a period of 256 days during which the plaintiff allegedly carried on quarrying operations illegally beyond the period of contract. The application was opposed by the plaintiff, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner-Gram Panchayat is not a party to the contract and that whatever the amount that is received by the other defendants will be distributed among the local bodies.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that even though the petitioner-Gram Panchayat is not a party to the contract, it is entitled to a share in the lease amount paid by the plaintiff during the contract period and in case the plaintiff's suit is decreed legalizing the quarry operations even after expiry of lease, the plaintiff is liable to pay the lease amount proportionately in which the petitioner has a share. As the local bodies were denied the share by reason of the injunction order granted by the trial Court the petitioner has to be compensated for the loss.