MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KARIMNAGAR Vs. MOHD IQBAL HUSSAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Municipal Council Karimnagar, the defendant in OS No.5 of 1987 on the file of the Court of Second Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29-6-1990 made thereunder preferred the present appeal.

(2.) Respondent, the plaintiff in the said suit filed the suit as against the appellant- defendant, the Municipal Council, Karimangar, for recovery of damages to a tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- on the ground that the house was demolished illegally. The suit was originally instituted as O.S. No.73 of 1983 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar. The learned Judge on the respective pleadings of the parties, having settled the issues, recorded the evidence of PWs.l and 2, DWs.l and 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A14 and Exs.Bl to B26 and ultimately decreed the suit for Rs.71,000/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest from the date of decree @ 6% p.a., till the date of realization on the amount of Rs.50,000/- and the rest of the suit claim was dismissed. As against the same, the present appeal is preferred.

(3.) Sri Polisetti Radhakrishna, the learned Standing Counsel representing the appellant as defendant had taken to this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the issues settled and the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the learned Judge and would comment that in the light of Section 258 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to for short 'the Act' for the purpose of convenience) the claim for compensation of damages as against the Municipal Council cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also explained the historical background of the litigation and would maintain that the respondent as plaintiff claims to have purchased the property in the Court auction sale, which would not confer any title since in the Court auction sale there is no warranty of title. The Counsel also pointed out to the prior proceedings and the resolution in pursuance of the said decision removed the said structures, which had been taken, and inasmuch as the action taken by the appellant-defendant as Municipality is in accordance with law, the claim of damages by respondent as plaintiff cannot be sustained. While further elaborating submissions the Counsel would submit that even otherwise, if the value of the structures to be taken into consideration, the damages awarded definitely would be on higher side. The learned Counsel would also maintain that the learned Judge referred to the decision of this Court in Kurmina Venkatrama Reddy v. Visakhapatnam Municipality, represented by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, reported in 1978 (2) APLJ 247 and the learned Counsel pointed-out that the said decision is concerned with Section 228 of the Act and the ratio in the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the learned Counsel requested that the appeal to be allowed.