IMPORTANT POINT
Suit land belongs to respondents 1 to 9 and not to respondent 11. It has been wrongly allotted by Govt. to appellant. Thus appellant and Government are to pay compensation to respondent 1 to 9 as directed by High Court.

Headnote:(i) Title to Suit Land-Respondents 1 to 9 claiming as heirs of owner G-Respondent 11 claiming under a sale deed from G-Both trial Court and Appellate Court finding that Respondent 11 has not been able to prove sale deed-Land belongs to Respondent 1 to 9-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Whether be dismissed? (Yes).
       Held : Between Respondents 1 to 9 and Respondent 11 there were conflicting claims in respect of the suit property. As stated above Respondents 1 to 9 claimed the lands as heirs of Ghulam Khader. Respondent 11 claimed the lands on the basis of an alleged Sale Deed. Both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have recorded findings of fact that Amina Begum has not been able to prove the Sale Deed. These findings of fact are based on evidence and we find no infirmity in the Judgments of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in this behalf. Therefore the claim of Respondent 11 (Amina Begum) cannot be upheld and Appeal NoS. 4874-75 of 1989 stand dismissed. (Para 8)
       (ii) Title to Suit Land-Two villages M and K-M village owned by Government-K village owned by private parties-Boundary dispute-Government alleging no dispute-Contrary to records and evidence-Whether be accepted? (No)-Supreme Court asking trial Court to find out-Trial Court appointing Commissioner-Report of Commissioner-Modified by trial Court-Whether trial Court has complied the directions of this Court? (Yes)-Result-State s and appellant s appeals dismissed-Appeal against compensation-No infirmity-Also dismissed.
       Held : This Court had directed the trial Court to record findings. The trial Court may have appointed a Commissioner to carry out survey but ultimately the findings had to be recorded by the trial Court. The report of the Commissioner could only be an aid to the trial Court in arriving at its findings. The Trial Court has allowed parties to lead oral as well as documentary evidence. The trial Court has complied with the directions of this Court. (Para 13)
       Held also : As is being pointed out hereafter, the above averments that the boundary dispute between Moosapet and Kukatpally village is still pending is contrary to Government records and to averments in Suit No. 102 of 1975. It is a pity that a Senior Officer of the rank of Secretary to the Government makes false averments before a Court of law. More than anybody else Government and its officers are expected to be honest with Courts of law and not take up a patently false stand. If an officer of this rank cannot be honest with the Court then one wonders how he can be trusted to hold such a high position. This Order is to be brought to the notice of the Chief Secretary who should warn the concerned officer not to repeat such behaviour and to keep the warning in the file of the officer. (Para 15)
       Held further : It is thus clear that the State of Andhra Pradesh has purported to allot Appellants (M/s. Praga Tools Corporation Ltd.) lands belonging to the Respondents 1 to 9 without acquiring the same and without paying any compensation for the same. The trial Court, was, therefore, right in decreeing the Suit and directing the State as well as M/s. Praga Tools Corporation Ltd. to jointly and severally pay compensation. The High Court was right in confirming this Decree. The High Court was also right in holding that what the State had taken over and handed to Praga Tools Corporation Ltd. was only 195 acres and 33 guntas. Compensation could thus be paid only in respect of this area. The High Court has amply protected Respondents 1 to 9 by observing that they remain the owners of the remaining land. (Para 24)
       Held therefore, as stated above Respondents 1 to 9 have also filed Appeal No. 2762 of 1989. It is against that portion of the Judgment restricting the compensation to 195 acres and 33 guntas and reducing the rate of interest to 6 p.a. We see no infirmity in the Order of the High Court. Appellants and Government are only liable to pay for the land wrongly taken over. As only 195 acres and 33 gunthas were taken over this only have to pay for that. The interest has been rightly fixed at 6 as, at the time the land was taken over, this was prevailing rate of interest. Civil Appeal No. 2762 of 1989 also stands dismissed. (Para 25)
       Held finally : In this view of the matter we see no reason to interfere in any of the Appeals. Accordingly Civil Appeal No. 2630 of 1989 filed by M/s Praga tools Corporation Ltd.; Civil Appeals Nos. 276 3/64 of 1989 filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Civil Appeal No.2762 of 1989 stand dismissed. (Para 26)

JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-All these Appeals can be disposed of by this common Order. Parties are being referred to in their capacity in Civil Appeal 2630 of 1989.

2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows.

3. In the State of Andhra Pradesh there are two adjoining villages viz. Moosapet and Kukatpalli. Kukatpalli was a khalsa (dewani) village where the lands were held by patedars. Moosapet was sarfe-khas village. Sometime in 1963 the Government of Andhra Pradesh (Respondent 10) allotted lands in Moosapet village in favour of various parties. Whilst so doing the Respondent 10 allotted to Appellants (M/s. Praga Tools Corporation Ltd.) an area of 195 acres 33 guntas in Survey No. 210/1 in Moosapet village. Possession was then given to Appellants.

4. Immediately on the transfer of land Smt. Mahboobunnissa Begum and ors. (Respondents 1 to 9) filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh claiming that the Government had purported to allot to Appellants lands belonging to them without having acquired the said land. It was claimed that the lands, which were allotted and of which possession was given, bore Survey Nos. 362 to 373 and part of survey No. 374 of Kukatpally village. In this Writ Petition the Government filed a counter affidavit stating that there was a dispute as to the question of title. On the basis of this counter affidavit the Writ Petition was dismissed with directions to approach the Civil Court.

5. In December 1974 Respondents 1 to 9 filed Suit No. 102 of 1975 seeking possession over the land in dispute or in the alternative compensation for illegal dispossession. One Amina Begum (Respondent 11) had also filed Suit No. 12 of 1974 claiming to be the owner of the same land. It must be mentioned that Respondents 1 to 9 claimed as heirs of previous owner Ghulam Khader. Respondent 11 made a claim to these lands on basis of an alleged Sale Deed in her favour from the said Ghulam Khader.

6. On 20th April, 1982 the trial Court decreed Suit No. 102 of 1975 and dismissed Suit No. 12 of 1974. Appellants and the Respondent 10 (Government) were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for the lands wrongly taken over. Against the decree dated 20th April, 1982, Appeals were filed both by the Government as well as Appellants. An Appeal was also filed by Respondent 11 against the dismissal of her suit. All these Appeals were decided by the High Court by a common Judgment dated 9th of September, 1988. By this Judgment the Appeal filed by Respondent 11 (Amina Begum) was dismissed. The Appeal filed by Appellants (Praga Tools Corporation Ltd.) was also dismissed. However, the Appeal filed by the Government was allowed in part to the extent that it was held that as the Government had handed over to Appellants only an area of 195 acres and 33 guntas, the compensation which was to be paid was only in respect of 195 acres and 33 guntas. It was held that if there was any excess land, over and above 195 acres and 33 guntas, that was certainly the property of Respondents 1 to 9.

7. As against this Judgment Appellants has filed Civil Appeal No. 2630 of 1989. The State of Andhra Pradesh has filed Civil Appeals bearing Nos. 2763-64 of 1989. Smt. Mahboobunnissa Begum & Ors. have filed Civil Appeal No. 2762 of 1989 and Amina Begum has filed Civil Appeal Nos. 4874-75 of 1989.

8. Between Respondents 1 to 9 and Respondent 11 there were conflicting claims in respect of the suit property. As stated above Respondents 1 to 9 claimed the lands as heirs of Ghulam Khader. Respondent 11 claimed the lands on the basis of an alleged Sale Deed. Both the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have recorded findings of fact that Amina Begum has not been able to prove the Sale Deed. These findings of fact are based on evidence and we find no infirmity in the Judgments of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court in this behalf. Therefore the claim of Respondent 11 (Amina Begum) cannot be upheld and Appea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 862

IMPORTANT POINTSuit land belongs to respondents 1 to 9 and not to respondent 11. It has been wrongly allotted by Govt. to appellant. Thus appellant and Government are to pay compensation to respondent 1 to 9 as directed by High Court.

IMPORTANT POINT
Suit land belongs to respondents 1 to 9 and not to respondent 11. It has been wrongly allotted by Govt. to appellant. Thus appellant and Government are to pay compensation to respondent 1 to 9 as directed by High Court.