KOLANATI SATYANARAYANA Vs. NIZAMPATNAM MASTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two second appeals are filed by the same individuals, against the same respondents. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment. Respondents 1 to 4 filed O.S.No.299 of 1980 in the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Repalle against the appellants and the fifth respondent for the relief of declaration that they are entitled to remove the clay from the suit schedule property,for the purpose of making pots and for consequential injunction, restraining them from interfering with their right. They pleaded that they are potters by community and from the time of their ancestors, they are using the clay from the Government lands in Sy.Nos.675,676 and 671 of Nizampatnam Village of Guntur District. It was stated that on the representation made by the patters all over the State, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.1076, dated 21.11.1970, directing that such of the land from which the potters are removing the clay for making pots shall be entered in the Prohibitory Order Book (P.O.B.) and the suit schedule property in Sy.No.681 admeasuring Acs.7.01 cent was also entered in the P.O.B. Their grievance was that yielding to the pressure exerted by the appellants herein, the local revenue officials have deleted the suit schedule land from the P.O.B. and assigned the same in favour of the appellants. It was complained that the appellants are preventing them from using the clay.

(2.) The appellants and the fifth respondent filed separate written statements disputing the allegations of respondents 1 to 4. They attempted to explain the circumstances, under which, the suit schedule property was deleted from P.O.B. and pleaded that the potters of the village were using the clay in the land in other survey numbers.

(3.) The trial Court decreed the suit. The appellants filed A.S.No.59 of 1987 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.299 of 1980. Similarly, the fifth respondent filed A.S. No.49 of 1987 against the said decree in the same Court. Though a common judgment, dated 14.02.1994, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeals. Hence, these second appeals.