The Govt. Of A.P. Machilipatnam vs Koganti Jagannada Rao Jaggaia, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8372 AP

      THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

               SECOND APPEAL No.1186 of 2011

JUDGMENT:

State Government is the appellant. The appeal is filed

under Section 100 C.P.C. It questions the correctness of

judgment dated 05.03.2010 in A.S.No.87 of 2009 of learned

VII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court),

Vijayawada. By the impugned judgment, the first appellate

Court agreed with the findings and conclusions reached by the

trial Court in O.S.No.851 of 2002 of learned I Additional Senior

Civil Judge, Vijayawada.

2. It was an appeal against sole respondent. Respondent

was plaintiff before the trial Court and was the respondent

before the first appellate Court. During pendency of the appeal,

respondent/plaintiff died on 10.08.2019. Thereafter, respondent

No.2, who is proper and necessary party to the appeal;

respondent Nos.3 and 4, who purchased a part of the plaint

schedule property, and respondent No.5 in whose favour the

deceased respondent No.1/plaintiff executed a Will are

impleaded. The entire dispute revolves around an erroneous

entry in revenue records, which was sought to be rectified

through the civil Courts by way of mandatory injunction. Both

the Courts below granted the relief to the plaintiff and thereby

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

directed the appellant to rectify the wrong classification in their

revenue records.

3. On 21.10.2011 a learned judge of this Court admitted this

appeal on the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the plaintiff without seeking a declaration to his title can seek mandatory injunction to change the revenue record according to his title?"

4. The alleged incorrect entry is with reference to immovable

property which is mentioned in the plaint schedule. It is

Ac.1.45 cents vacant dry agricultural land in R.S.No.225/3A in

Ibrahimpatnam Village. The boundaries to it are that: on East: it

is Budameru Diversion Canal Bund; on South: it is Road; on

West: it is Krishna River Flood Bank; on North: it is P.W.D.

Poramboke land.

5. Sri Koganti Jagannada Rao filed O.S.No.851 of 2002

stating that Sri Koganti Kotaiah is his grandfather and

Sri Naraiah is father of the plaintiff. That from the time of

ancestors, their family owned and possessed Acs.5.79 cents of

land, which includes the plaint schedule land. All throughout,

the ancestors and thereafter the plaintiff are shown in the

revenue records as owners and pattadar of this land. In the

year 1957 for the purpose of Budameru Flood Diversion

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

Channel, State of Andhra Pradesh acquired Acs.4.35 cents of

land from out of Acs.5.79 cents of land. Thus, there remained

Ac.1.45 cents of land, which is shown in the plaint schedule.

Thus, the plaint schedule property has been in continuous and

exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The

plaintiff does not have any other land anywhere in the country.

6. In the year 2001 this plaint schedule land was noted as

Government Poramboke in the revenue records though it is a

private land. The plaint schedule land was not acquired by the

defendant or any other authority for any purpose. Thus, there

is wrong entry and it must have been made because of a private

grudge cherished by Village Administrative Officer. Seeking for

rectification of it, plaintiff got issued a notice under Section 80

C.P.C. on 27.01.2002. It was received by defendant on

29.01.2002. On 16.02.2002 proceedings were issued to Mandal

Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam and its copy was served on the

counsel for plaintiff. However, after such proceedings, there

was no further response from the defendant. It is in those

circumstances, plaintiff filed the suit with a prayer that is

extracted here:

"Directing the defendant to rectify the wrong classification of plaint schedule land in the revenue records by changing it

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

as plaintiff's patta land by way of mandatory injunction or other direction and for costs and such other reliefs?"

7. In response to it, the District Collector, Krishna

representing the defendant filed a written statement. In it, it is

stated that Koganti family had got Acs.5.79 cents in R.S.

No.225, Ibrahimpatnam Village. As per R.S.R., the above extent

situate in R.S.No.225/3. During the year 1957, some portion of

the land in R.S.No.225 was acquired for Budameru Flood

Division Channel. After classification, the details of the land in

R.S.No.225 are furnished in the written statement. It consists

of four items. They are extracted below:

     Sl.No.    R.S.No.   Extent in             Name of the Ryot
                          Acres

       1.      225/1       2.23      1.Chalasani Venkateswara Rao

                                     2.Koneru Radhakrishna Murthy

       2.      225/2A      0.98      Manda Kanakaiah

       3.      225/2B      5.24      Budameru Channel

                                     (Land in Old S.No.225/4 included in
                                     this land )

       4.      225/3A      1.45      Road Approach

                Total      9.90

8. It is then stated in the written statement that the

disputed land is classified as road approach in the revenue

records. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff that he is

continuing his possession over the said land is not possible. At

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

the time of acquisition or subsequent to it, the plaintiff or his

parents never took any interest in this land. The allegations

made against Village Administrative Officer are baseless and

without any evidence. After keeping silence for so many years,

plaintiff has all of a sudden come up with this suit. Rest of the

plaint averments are denied. That the plaintiff is not concerned

with the suit property and the plaintiff has no right over the

land and the suit is liable for dismissal.

9. On hearing both sides, learned I Additional Senior Civil

Judge, framed the following issues for trial:

"1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed for?

2) To what relief?"

10. At the trial, the plaintiff gave evidence as PW.1 and got

examined two other neighbours, who deposed as PWs.2 and 3.

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatnam gave evidence as

DW.1. On behalf of plaintiff, Exs.A.1 to A.12 were marked. For

defendant, Exs.B.1 to B.7 were marked.

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

Those documents are:

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Printed detailed list of joint registered holders for the village of Ibrahimpatnam, Bezawada Taluq, Krishna District (1932).

Ex.A2: Printed detailed list of joint registered Inamdars at Page No.1.

Ex.A3: Resettlement Register.

Ex.A4: Printed Re-settlement Register of the village Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District (19 Pages).

Exs.A5 Sketches relating to the suit land. to A7:

Ex.A8: Office copy of legal notice issued to the defendant by the plaintiff Dt.27.01.02.

Ex.A9: Postal Acknowledgment.

Ex.A10: Letter addressed by the defendant to M.R.O.

Dt.16.02.2002.

Ex.A11: Photostat copy of Report of Mandal Revenue Officer to the Collector, Krishna, Machilipatnam Dt.26.05.2000.

Ex.A12: Endorsement given by the M.R.O. Ibrahimpatnam Village, to the plaintiff Dt.08.04.2002.

For Defendant:

Ex.B1: Filled measurement book for survey No.225.

Ex.B2: FMB record for survey number 225 noted as changes effected, as per RC B2-7-8A.

Ex.B3: Combined sketch for Ibrahimpantam.

Ex.B4: Page No.14 of R.S.R.Register.

Ex.B5: Photostat copy of Ex.B4.

Ex.B6: Endorsement made in R.S.R. towards changes of classification.

Ex.B7: Photostat copy of Ex.B6.

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

11. In his evidence PW.1 asserted his title and possession

over the plaint schedule land and stated that only in the year

2001 he learnt about Government entering this land in revenue

records as Government Poramboke. He deposed that plaint

schedule land was not acquired by the defendant. PWs.2 and 3

also deposed about title and possession of PW.1. The Mandal

Revenue Officer, through his evidence spoke to the facts that

were narrated in the written statement. In his evidence he

stated that the disputed suit land was classified as road

approach and stated that the possession claimed by plaintiff is

incorrect. He said that according to R.S.R, the disputed land is

classified as road approach. During his cross-examination,

DW.1 stated that as per R.S.R., Acs.5.79 cents in

Ibrahimpatnam Village in R.S.No.225/3 was owned by the

family of plaintiff. Out of the above said land, Government

acquired Acs.4.34 cents. For the remaining Ac.1.45 cents,

survey number is given as 225/3A (that is the suit schedule

property). He stated that he does not have any record to show

that the Government acquired the suit schedule land also. He

further admitted that he does not have any record in his office

to show that any compensation was paid to the plaintiff for

these Ac.1.45 cents of suit land. His evidence is to the effect

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

that as per Exs.B.1 and B.2-FMB and Ex.B.3-Combined sketch

he stated that land was acquired. He was specifically

questioned about land acquisition records. In response to it

finally, he stated that he required two months' time for

production of such records. Various suggestions were given to

him referring to Exs.B.4 to B.7 that they were interpolated and

the attention of the Court was drawn to absence of signatures or

initials at certain places and absence of signatures at all at

certain places and use of a pen at certain places. It was also

indicated that the signature portion on Ex.B.6 was torn off. On

that evidence, learned trial Court considered the rival

submissions. It recorded that the defendant-Government was

contending that the suit schedule land was also acquired. It

recorded that no evidence was produced before it indicating

such acquisition. It found that from the evidence of PWs.1 to 3,

the plaint schedule land has been in possession and enjoyment

of plaintiff. It found it is a dry land and observed that simply

because crops were not raised, the possession claimed by

plaintiff could not be disbelieved in the light of sworn evidence

of PWs.2 and 3. It further referred to Ex.A.11 and the evidence

of DW.1, wherein the revenue authorities have physically

verified the land and found that there was no need for any road

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

approach since there was no connecting route to that road

approach. It observed that Government did not acquire the suit

schedule land. It also observed that Government failed to show

when the revenue records made an entry that it is a road or a

Government Poramboke. It stated that there is absolutely no

evidence to show that public ever used the suit schedule

property as a road. It said that except making entries in the

revenue records that it is a road approach, there is absolutely

no evidence to believe the case of the Government.

12. It seems, before the learned trial Court one of the

contentions raised was that a civil suit was not maintainable.

Learned trial Court held that the suit was not questioning the

land acquisition and not questioning any issues concerning

compensation, but the suit questions only the correctness of

entries maintained in the revenue records. Such relief is within

the jurisdiction of civil Court in terms of Section 9 C.P.C.

Therefore, it held that civil suit is maintainable. For the above

reasons, it decreed the suit as prayed for.

13. Aggrieved of it, Government preferred the first appeal.

Learned first appellate Court, on considering the material and

the submissions of both sides, recorded that there was no

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

dispute about plaintiff's family originally owning Acs.5.79 cents

and Government acquiring only Acs.4.35 cents and the crux of

the problem pertains to Ac.1.45 cents and whether it was

acquired or not. On a keen reading of the written statement the

first appellate Court pointed out that the averments in the

written statement are vague since it mentioned that only some

portion of the land in R.S.No.225 was acquired without making

specifics clear. It observed that important documents such as

award and land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have

been in the custody of State Government and they may be with

land acquisition officer or they may be with Irrigation

Department for whose benefit land was acquired. The District

Collector is in-charge of the District and holds control over all

these departments. Though Government is custodian of the

records, it did not produce them and suppressed them. It then

verified the evidence of DW.1 and the other evidence on record

and concluded that plaintiff is owner and title holder of the suit

schedule land and the Government has wrongly entered his

land as a road approach in the revenue records. It approved the

findings of the trial Court and agreed with its final conclusions

and dismissed the appeal.

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

14. Aggrieved of it, Government is in this second appeal. The

substantial question of law it raised is:

"Whether the suit filed for mandatory injunction seeking

rectification of alleged incorrect classification made in the

revenue records is maintainable without seeking declaration of

title?"

15. Having raised such contention, it is expected that it would

base its contention either on statute or on precedent. Before

this Court appellant has not shown support for the contention

under any law.

16. Learned counsel for respondents also has not brought to

the notice of this Court anything against the contentions raised.

17. It is in the above context, the substantial question of law

that is raised has to be addressed.

18. It is convenient to notice what the statute speaks.

Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act')

provides for mandatory injunction. The same is extracted

below:-

"39. Mandatory Injunction:-

When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the court is capable of enforcing, the court may in its discretion

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts.

It is also relevant to notice Section 40 of the Act. The

same is extracted below:-

40. Damages in lieu of, or in addition to, injunction:-

(1) The plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction under section 38, or mandatory injunction under section 39, may claim damages either in addition to, or in substitution for, such injunction and the court may, if it thinks fit, award such damages.

(2) No relief for damages shall be granted under this section unless the plaintiff has claimed such relief in his plaint:

Provided that where no such damages have been claimed in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceedings, allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint on such terms as may be just for including such claim.

(3) The dismissal of a suit to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in favor of the plaintiff shall bar his right to sue for damages for such breach.

Principles concerning declaration of rights are provided in

Section 34 of the Act. The same is extracted below:-

34. Declaration of Courts as to declaration of status or right:-

Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask for any further relief:

Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere declaration of title, omits to do so.

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

Explanation: A trustee of property is a "person interested to deny" a title adverse to the title of some one who is not in existence, and whom, if in existence, he would be a trustee."

19. A reading of Section 39 of the Act extracted above would

show that it is not made dependent on making any other prayer

in the suit. Reading of this provision shows that a mere suit for

mandatory injunction is also maintainable. Section 40

extracted above would further show that under certain

circumstances how damages could be awarded instead of

granting mandatory injunction. In other words, seeking

declaration of title before seeking mandatory injunction is not

the principle that could be directly inferred from the above

provisions. It cannot be denied that Government maintains

revenue records and it has to maintain them truthfully. It has

an obligation to maintain them accurately. The obligation in the

suit is that out of some vengeance for a Village Administrative

Officer entries were changed and private patta land is

incorrectly shown as road approach or Government Poramboke.

To bring back the records to their truthful position, the remedy

chosen by the plaintiff and agreed by Courts below is mandatory

injunction as Section 39 of the Act permits a Court to grant

such a relief to "compel performance of the requisite acts."

By filing the suit, respondent/plaintiff was only asking that an

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

act that was down in contravention of law being void is to be

rectified. In the case at hand, by the pleadings and evidence on

both sides, there is absolute agreement between parties that the

family of the plaintiff originally owned and possessed Acs.5.79

cents in R.S.No.225/3 of Ibrahimpatnam Village. While

according to both sides, there was land acquisition to an extent

of Acs.4.35 cents, it is undeniable that if no further acquisition

was there, the remaining Ac.1.45 cents belonged to plaintiff.

According to the version of the Government that was also

acquired and that was used for road approach. It is not the

case of Government that at no point of time this land ever

belonged to plaintiff or his family. Therefore, till the years 1957

and 1958 this land belonged to plaintiff. It has never disputed

the title of the plaintiff and in fact its evidence in the form of

DW.1/M.R.O. abundantly clarifies that position. When the

Government never questioned the title of the plaintiff, there was

never any occasion for the plaintiff to seek the relief under

Section 34 of the Act and ask the Court to declare his title.

Therefore, facts on record never gave any occasion to any of the

Courts below or even to this Court about the legal need for

respondents herein to seek for declaration of title. If by

evidence plaintiff is able to show that the revenue entry has no

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

legal basis, then such a revenue entry is void. When what is

available is void, law does not command a party to seek for a

declaration that it is void. The relief in the form of deleting the

void entry by replacing it with correct entry is always available.

As a principle of law that in a suit for mandatory injunction, a

party should also ask for declaration is one contention that was

specifically raised and negatived on many occasions by Courts.

A reference could be made to a judgment of this Court in

M.Muthamma v. E.Anantha Lakshmi Bai1. In that case also

specific substantial question of law was framed at point No.2 at

page No.763 and was specifically answered at para No.11 at

page No.769. Therefore, the substantial question of law raised

in this appeal shall be held against the appellant and in favour

of the respondents. In other words, a suit for mandatory

injunction filed, tried, decided by the trial Court and approved

by the first appellate Court has to be approved as correct.

20. The appellant filed I.A.No.1 of 2014 (S.A.M.P.No.688 of

2014) under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. to permit it to file

additional evidence in the form of three documents and mark

2004 (2) ALD 762

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

them as Exs.B.9 to B.11. The description of those documents is

as below:-

1. Letter D.O.No.RC.A.4/58, dated 19.08.1958

2. RC.A.4/58, dated 09.12.1958

3. Land Acquisition Check Memorandum, dated 27.12.1959

21. Document No.1 is a letter addressed by Special Tahsildar,

Land acquisition on 19.08.1958 and it was addressed to the

Executive Engineer, Special Division, Vijayawada and a copy of

it was marked to District Collector, Krishna. In this letter, it is

mentioned that land in R.S.No.225/3A and four other survey

numbers, the information concerning taking possession was not

received and as a consequence award could not be passed

though the enquiry was over on 18.07.1958. Thus, it indicates

that some acquisition proceedings took place but the status of

possession of the lands was not known and therefore that

communication was entered into.

22. By document No.2 addressed to the District Collector,

Krishna, the Special Tahsildar mentioned that those lands were

handed over on 04.12.1958 to the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D. at

Kondapalli. This document further mentioned award was

passed on 01.11.1958 and Award number is 8 of 1958. Thus,

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

as per this document, award proceedings were over and

possession of the land was taken.

23. Document No.3 is land acquisition check memorandum.

It mentions about dispatch of certain forms to Registration

Department on 23.02.1959.

24. In support of this petition, Special Tahsildar, Land

Protection Cell, Krishna Collectorate, Krishna District swore an

affidavit stating that Ac.1.45 cents of land in Survey No.225/3A

of Ibrahimpatnam Village was acquired by the Government and

award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on

01.11.1958. It further states that the respondent/original

plaintiff participated in the award proceedings and the same

could be seen through the award itself and that the award is

also filed herewith. That all this record was not available with

the Government at the relevant time and it could not be traced

for all these years and they were ultimately traced during the

year 2010. That the suit was filed 43 years after land

acquisition and the plaint does not disclose about land

acquisition. Plaintiff having kept silence over all these years

came up with suit for mandatory injunction. The record could

be found only after thorough search. In these circumstances,

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

these documents are relevant to prove the case of the appellant.

The worthiness of essential material evidence touching upon the

core issue is a matter that could be considered by the Courts

sitting in second appeal is the argument of the learned

Government Pleader. To sustain it, learned Government Pleader

cited a judgment of a learned judge of this Court in S.A.No.251

of 2020 decided on 21.09.2022. That was a suit for permanent

injunction. The additional documents were found relevant to

resolve that dispute between the parties on the principle that

pending litigation if new facts are traced and relevant to the

issue, it is in the interest of justice the Court should resolve the

dispute and even it could mould the relief. It observed that a

petition for additional evidence filed before the first appellate

Court was dismissed without valid reasons. On consideration of

the facts available before this Court in that case, the learned

judge set aside the impugned judgments and directed the first

appellate Court to receive the additional documents as

additional evidence and dispose of the appeal afresh. Learned

Government Pleader also cited Gaiv Dinshaw Irani v.

Tehmtan Irani2. For the proposition that whenever subsequent

events of fact or law which have a material bearing on the

(2014) 8 SCC 294

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

entitlement of the parties to relief or on aspects which bear on

the moulding of the relief occur, the Court is not precluded from

taking a 'cautious cognizance' of the subsequent changes of fact

and law to mould the relief.

25. Learned counsel on both sides argued this petition.

26. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submit that even

if these documents are considered as correct, the fact remains

that there is absolutely no averment and no evidence to show

that for the allegedly acquired suit schedule land compensation

was paid by the Government to the plaintiff. It is pointed out

that in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, at para No.7

the deponent says that if compensation was not paid, the land

owner would not have kept quite all these years. Referring to

this, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submits that even

at this stage the Government is only groping in dark and has

not come up with any evidence to show that compensation was

paid. Learned counsel submits that if compensation was not

paid, title does not vest with the Government despite the fact

that it acquired the land and took the possession of the land. In

this regard, learned counsel cites S.Sidda Reddy v. District

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

Collector (Social Welfare), Cuddapah 3. That was also a case

of land acquisition and by evidence it was found that

compensation was not paid though award was passed and that

the Government decided to pay compensation by way of

installments and it paid two installments and defaulted in

paying remaining installments. It was in the context of those

facts when the writ was filed, the learned judge had cited the

statute and held that vestiture of title under Section 16 of the

Land Acquisition Act would take place on the payment of

compensation. If compensation is not paid, it cannot be said

that a valid vestiture in the Government takes place. In the

case at hand, nothing contrary is cited by the Government. As

one could see from the pleadings, the oral and documentary

evidence and the judgments of the trial Court and the first

appellate Court that there was no material to show that

Government paid compensation to the plaintiff with reference to

acquisition of plaint schedule land. Even in the present

petition, it is not the case of Government that it paid

compensation. Having acquired the land, it is the duty of the

Government to pay compensation and it is for the Government

to show that it had paid the compensation. No such material is

2002 (4) ALT 207 (AP)

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

sought to be brought on record. Thus, the facts that emanated

from the record and recorded by the Courts below that no

compensation was paid to the plaintiff remains unaltered

despite admitting the proposed evidence coming forth from the

Government. Even if decades elapsed, though the pointed

dispute is clearly known, though the law in regard to these

aspects is well-known, the appellant has not chosen to produce

any record indicating payment of compensation. In that view of

the matter, the additional evidence even if received serves no

purpose since title over the land never stood vested with the

Government. Since title never stood vested with the

Government, it had no right to maintain its records that the

plaint schedule land is now a road approach. Thus, the Courts

below are still right in holding that classification of land is

incorrectly made and that should be rectified.

27. When DW.1 was cross-examined, during the pendency of

the trial, he was specifically asked about these proposed

documents. He sought for two months' time. That two months

elapsed. Thereafter, decades elapsed. Now, the appellant says

that after thorough search these records were traced in the year

2010. It does not specify whether they were traced subsequent

to 05.03.2010 on which date the first appellate Court disposed

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

of the appeal or earlier to it. Be that as it may. After receiving

them in the year, 2010, after filing this appeal in the year 2011,

it is only in the year 2014 Government has come up with this

application for additional evidence. Inter departmental

cohesiveness is conspicuously absent leading to these belated

efforts on part of the Government to salvage its stand. District

Collector, as pointed out by the Courts below, is the authority,

who is deemed to have custody of all the records. These records

were available with the Government. It seems only lethargy

prevented the Government servants from producing them at

relevant time. In the above reported judgments cited by learned

Government Pleader reference always was made to Order XLI

Rule 27 C.P.C. That provision says additional evidence could be

received only when such evidence could not be produced despite

due diligence. Due diligence is not a matter of mere words.

Under Ex.A.11, the Mandal Revenue Officer addressed to the

District Collector requiring the need for records concerning land

acquisition. All that happened prior to the institution of the suit

in the year 2002. It is now the year 2022. That the

Government is now urging for these additional evidence. In a

way it is a case where one could say that the record does not

permit this Court to say that there was due diligence. Nothing

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

more need be stated on this aspect. Despite the consideration

of the proposed documents, in terms of available and

established and undisputed facts and the undisputed law since

the compensation was never paid to the respondent/plaintiff by

this appellant/Government, the point boils down to the fact that

title in the plaint schedule property never vested with the

Government. When that being the case, consideration of this

additional evidence serves no purpose. In that view of the

matter, this Court finds no merit in the prayer for additional

evidence. Therefore, I.A.No.1 of 2014 is dismissed.

28. Learned Government Pleader urges that more than 40

years after acquisition, the plaintiff had come to Court seeking

for rectification of entries in revenue records and the suit is

barred by limitation. As against it, learned counsel for

respondents submits that necessary pleadings are missing in

the written statement concerning limitation and no issue was

settled at the trial and such point was not argued earlier. There

is merit in the submissions of the learned counsel for

respondents. Besides it, in the plaint it is mentioned and PW.1

deposed that it was in the year 2001 the wrong entry crept up.

Throughout the proceedings before Courts below, never

Government stated the date on which it brought the changes in

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

the entries in the revenue records. Therefore, there are no facts

to examine the starting point of limitation. Perhaps for this

reason, Government did not take a stand on the principle of

limitation when it filed its written statement. In this second

appeal, the contention that the suit is barred by limitation is to

be negatived since it is not based on any fact that is part of the

record.

29. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant

argued that though land was acquired, plaintiff suppressed that

fact and therefore, he is not entitled for relief. Having

considered this submission, it is to be stated that in the written

statement or in the evidence of DW.1 or before the appellate

Court, Government failed to show that plaint schedule land was

also acquired. As rightly pointed out by the learned first

appellate Court the written statement has vagueness as it only

mentioned that some land in the relevant survey number was

acquired. When the Government itself was not able to assert

facts with certainty by mentioning the date and number of the

award, one cannot attribute mala fides against the plaintiff

about some event that may have occurred decades ago.

Therefore, one cannot say that plaintiff suppressed material

facts intentionally. Therefore, that contention is negatived.

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

30. On a total consideration of the record, it is seen that both

the Courts below properly appreciated the facts and reached to

appropriate conclusions. There are no merits in the grounds

urged in this appeal. Point is answered against the appellant.

31. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed confirming

the lower Courts judgments. There shall be no order as to

costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 07.11.2022 Ivd

Dr. VRKS, J S.A.No.1186 of 2011

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

SECOND APPEAL No.1186 of 2011

Date: 07.11.2022

Ivd