STATE OF A P Vs. KONALA SUBBIREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru, the defendant in OS No.46 of 1978 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Tanuku. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the said suit.

(2.) The suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to recover fair, adequate and reasonable compensation in respect of plaint schedule property and for consequential mandatory injunction directing the appellant herein, the defendant in the said suit, to make a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The suit was dismissed and the matter was carried by way of appeal to this Court AS No.930 of 1982 and this Court allowed the appeal setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and remanded the matter and on remand the trial Court, on considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, decreed the suit with costs declaring that the plaintiff has a right to recover fair, adequate and reasonable compensation in respect of the schedule property and also granted consequential relief of mandatory injunction directing defendant to cause proper reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal had been preferred.

(3.) The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Appeals had taken this Court through the grounds of appeal and also the order of remand made by this Court and the findings recorded by the trial Court and would maintain that from the beginning the question of want of jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the present suit had been raised and agitated and it is not as though for the first time the said question is being raised in this appeal. The learned counsel also further touched the merits and demerits of the matter in the light of the oral and documentary evidence available on record and further would maintain that even otherwise the suit is not maintainable since no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been issued before the institution of the suit. The counsel also would maintain that in any event the relief of mandatory injunction prayed for by the respondent-plaintiff to refer the matter under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be granted by a civil Court and definitely the said remedy or the relief prayed for is a misconceived one. The learned counsel had placed reliance on certain decisions in this regard.