ADDANIKI ADILAKSHMAMMA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ONGOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the dismissal of I. A. No. 552 of 2002 in O.S.No.261 of 1999 filed under Order VII Rules 10 and 11(d) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reject the plaint, by an order dated 7-2-2005 of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, the petitioners therein/defendants 1 and 2 in the suit filed Civil Revision Petition No. 1405 of 2006, while the legal representatives of defendants 3 and 4 and the 5th defendant in the suit filed Civil Revision Petition No. 1602 of 2005.

(2.) The facts leading to the revision petitions are that the plaintiff filed O.S. No.261 of 1999 claiming that she and her husband encroached upon about Ac. 0-01 cent in T.S. No. 1038 of Addanki Gram Panchayat covered by the plaint schedule in 1982, put up a thatched shed and were living therein, selling beedies, cigarettes, cool drinks, etc., in the road margin. While in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment, Paladugu Narayana, the husband of the plaintiff, approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Addanki for grant of patta and a D.K. patta was granted. In 1995 the plaintiffs husband applied to the Gram Panchayat for approval of a plan tor construction of a permanent house and the plan was approved, after which the plaintiff's husband raised a zinc sheet shed with permanent walls with a bunk on its front abutting the main road. Defendants 3 to 5 claiming purchase of Ac. 0-07 cents and encroachment of Ac. 0-09 cents in S. No. 1038 including the plaint schedule site, attempted to get the plaintiff and her husband evicted, but they failed in their suits, appeals and writ petitions against the Government and the plaintiff's husband. In the writ petitions filed by the plaintiff's husband and defendants 3 to 5, they were directed to approach the Mandal Revenue Officer, and the Mandal Revenue Officer reported to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole to cancel the patta in favour of the plaintiff's husband, while finding the claim of defendants 3 to 5 to be unsustainable and illegal. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Ongole after issue of show cause notices, recommended to the Joint Collector to cancel the patta in favour of the plaintiff's husband and the Joint Collector accordingly cancelled the patta without issuing any show cause notice as per his order dated 5-2-1996. The plaintiff's husband and defendants 3 to 5 filed revision petitions before the Special Commissioner, Land Revenue in B.C. W. 3/226/96 and B. C. W. 3/335/96 which were dismissed on 9-12-1996. W. P. No. 27572 of 1996, W. P. No. 887 of 1996 and W. P. No.2726 of 1997 filed by the plaintiff's husband and defendants 3 to 5 respectively ended in a direction to the Joint Collectorto hold a fresh enquiry. The Joint Collector, Ongole again disallowed the claims of both by his order dated 27-12-1998. The plaintiff's husband died in the meanwhile on 23-9-1998. The D.K.T. patta No. 86/93, dated 30-10-1993, the assessment and collection of house tax by the Gram Panchayat, the service connection and collection of electricity consumption charges by the Electricity Board, the collection of fees under the Shops and Establishments Act and Factories Act, etc. show the plaintiffs husband and the plaintiff to have perfected their right to continue in possession and hence, the suit for declaring the Joint Collector's order dated 27-12-1998 to be arbitrary, illegal and capricious and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment. The plaintiff filed along with the plaint the earlier orders of the Joint Collector and the Special Commissioner, Land Revenue, the proceedings of the Joint Collector under challenge, the D.K. patta, the plan approved by the Gram Panchayat, the orders of the Executive Officer, Gram Panchayat, house tax receipts, land revenue receipts, electricity receipts and death certificate of her husband.

(3.) The defendants were stated to have filed their written statement and the suit was stated to be coming for framing of issues. In the written statement by the Mandal Revenue Officer (2nd defendant), it was stated, among otherthings, that the plaintiff's husband raised a shed in the disputed site on 31-12-1995 and that the plaintiff filed the suit after filing the revision before the Commissioner, Appeals. The failure of defendants 3 to 5 in various proceedings initiated against the Government was also stated in detail.