Chekka Suryanarayana vs Land Acquisition Office And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2246 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
                           &
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

                       I.A.No.1 of 2023
                              in
                  Appeal Suit No.154 of 2023

ORDER: (per Sri Justice D.V.S.S.Somayajulu)

       Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned

counsel for respondent.

2. The prayer in I.A.No.1 of 2023 is as follows:

"pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings,

including execution of the decree dated 12.09.2022 passed

in L.A.O.P.No.2/2014, on the file of Senior Civil Judge,

Pithapuram, as otherwise the petitioners will be put to

irreparable loss and inconvenience and pass"

3. Learned counsel for the appellants argues that the

whole issue in this case emanated from the proceedings of

the Revenue Divisional Officer, wherein he has held as

follows:

"As there is rival claims in regard to the extent of

Ac.0.30 cents notified in Survey No.149/2 of Tuni Town

compensation cannot be paid to either of the parties. In

pursuance of the orders issued by the Hon'ble High Court

in W.P.No.25355/2008, it is hereby ordered to refer the

matter to the Civil Court under Section 30(2) of the L.A.Act

and to deposit the compensation amount of

Rs.87,46,151/- (Rupees Eighty seven lakhs forty six

thousand one hundred fifty one only) payable for the said

land, so as to pay the compensation to the rightful owner

after decided by the Civil Court."

4. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellants argues

that the issue before the trial Court was a decision on the

right, title and interest of the parties over the land

measuring Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.149/2 of Tuni town.

5. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the

respondent has taken diametrically conflicting stands.

Drawing the attention of this Court to the counter filed, he

points out that the claimant has stated that the property

under acquisition is the ancestral property of the claimant.

He also states that the claimant has taken an alternative

plea that she has perfected the title by an adverse

possession by being in possession over the statutory period

with the necessary hostile intention. She has also stated

in para-10 that she is a party interested.

6. Learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court

to the issues framed by the trial Court, which are reflected

in Para-6 of the impugned Judgment wherein he points out

that in issue No.1, the burden was placed upon the

claimants to prove their right by the interest over the

property. Issue No.4 is to the effect that claimant No.9 has

to probablise the case that she has acquired title by

adverse possession.

7. Coming to the evidence introduced, learned counsel

points out that a reading of para-41 along with the

documents enclosed with the evidence shows, she had

relied essentially on documents like electricity bills etc., to

show that she is in possession and enjoyment of the

property. Relying upon Ex.A-9, which is filed as a material

paper along with affidavit, he argues that the particular

door number in which the respondent relies upon in the

Door No.1-60-50 is a non-existing door number. He argues

that the information by the Tuni Municipal Corporation

itself certifies that the door number in which the

respondent relies (Door no.1-60-50) does not exist in the

records of Tuni Municipal Corporation. Therefore, it is

submitted that all the documents relied upon by the

petitioner which have a reference to this door number

cannot be relied upon. He also points out that the

petitioner prays their title to the sale deed of 1919, which

is further conveyed to the appellants in 1923. He also

points out that the learned trail Judge committed an error

referring to the tax of Rs.8.12 paise as the patta number.

8. It is his contention that the documentary evidence

will prevail over the oral evidence. Ultimately it is his

contention that there are seriously disputed questions of

the fact and law to be decided and therefore status quo

ante that was prevailing should be preserved. Relying upon

"Kashi Math Samsthan and Another Vs.

Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy and Another"1, learned

counsel argues that the existing status quo should be

preserved and in the present case an interim order was

there not to disburse the amount. He prays that the same

order should be continued.

9. In response to this, the learned counsel for the

respondent also argues the matter at length. He points out

that the petitioners/writ appellants have not been able to

probablise their case and are introduced positive evidence

(2010) 1 SCC 689

that they have title over this specific extent of land namely

Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.149/2. In addition, he also relies

upon the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer

filed on 23.07.2013 to show that Sy.No.149/2 itself has 22

sub divisions and the writ appellants have not been able to

establish their title or their possession about this

particular bit of land. He points out that at various places

it is mentioned that the 2nd respondent is in permissive

possession, that she is trespasser and also that she has a

watch lady appointed to guard the property. Therefore, he

submits that the appellants are not sure about this status

of the 2nd respondent itself.

10. He relies upon the admissions made in the course of

the deposition of the witness for the appellants. He also

points out that the respondent has taken a categorical plea

that the documents of title deeds on which she relies upon

are not proved. Ultimately on a comparative assessment,

trial Court has come to a conclusion. Therefore, he

submits that after threadbare discussion, trial Court has

come to a conclusion that the respondent is entitled to the

amount that is the subject matter of the stay application.

He also submits that in the alternative, the appellants have

not offered to furnish security as warranted by law and

more particularly by Order 41 Rule 5 (3) of C.P.C.

Therefore, he submits that the application should be

dismissed.

11. On an assessment of the rival contentions and

issues, it is apparent and crystal clear that the seriously

disputed questions of fact and law are to be adjudicated in

this matter. The question of the right, title and possession

of the Ac.0.30 cents of land is the subject matter of the

dispute. A reference was made to a Civil Court pursuant

an order by this Court in W.P.No.25355 of 2008 itself,

wherein the Court directed that the matter should be

referred to for adjudication due to rival claims. The

amount involved is also substantial and by the date of the

reference, it was Rs.87,46,151/-, but today the value has

increased to more than a crore of rupees. Whether the

appellants have been able to prove their title and whether

the respondent's title is established, is a matter which can

only be decided after the appellate Court sees to the entire

evidence that has been introduced.

12. Learned counsels have in the course of their

submissions highlighted certain portions of the evidence to

argue their respective contentions, but in the opinion of

this Court, the entire evidence both documentary and oral

have to be gone into in detail before the rights of the

parties can be finally established. Admittedly, this is a

First Appeal that is being heard. It is continuation of the

original proceedings. Evidence introduced in the case is

through P.Ws.1 to 5 and 22 documents for the claimants,

5 documents of the Referring Officer and photograph also.

Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the status quo ante

that was existing should be preserved.

13. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion

that as seriously disputed questions of fact and law are

involved, there shall be an interim stay as prayed for.

Admittedly, an application is already been filed in the trial

Court for encashment of the amount is yet to be ordered.

Therefore, steps are being taken and rightly so by the

successful party to get the benefits of the decree. However,

at the same time, this Court is conscious that it has to

preserve and protect the interest of the appellant also since

the appeal is yet to be heard. If the appellants succeed,

there would be difficulty in releasing the amount.

Therefore, this status quo as it should be preserved since

the amount is admittedly kept in fixed deposit. The

interests of both the parties would be preserved, if the

amount is continued to be invested in fixed deposits.

Depending upon the result of the final adjudication, the

successful party can withdraw the amount along with the

accrued interest.

14. In the course of the submissions, the learned

counsel for the appellants also agree that his clients would

be willing to provide security as mandatory under

Order 41 Rule 5(3) of C.P.C. This Court is of the opinion

that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,

need for the petitioner for furnishing the security as

warranted under Order 41 Rule 5(3) of C.P.C is not

needed.

15. Hence, there shall be an interim stay as prayed for.

________________________________ JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU

________________________ JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

Date: 24.04.2023 Note:

Issue C.C. in two days.

(By Order) ANI

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. SRINIVAS

I.A.No.1 of 2023 in Appeal Suit No.154 of 2023

Dated: 24.04.2023 ANI