2002 Supreme(AP) 1061

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.SUDERSHAN REDDY
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited - Respondent
Decided On : 09-06-02

Headnote:

Civil Law – Civil Matter – Land Laws – Code of Civil Procedure,1908 – Section 80 - Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act,1950 - Section 3,24,4,6,13,50-B,108 - Sake of Convenience - Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 - Andhra Pradesh Co-operative societies Act, 1964 - Section 19 - Indian Evidence Act,1972 – Section 35 – Seeking for Compensation - Plaintiff society entered into an agreement of sale to purchase and later on purchased an extent of Ac. 12-20 guntas out of Survey rom B. M. Rama Reddy and has developed Vasavinagar Colony as their first venture in the locality - Plaintiff entered into an agreement with B. M. Rama Reddy and other pattedars to purchase remaining extent of Ac. 8-20 guntas of land in Survey (later subdivided as 60/1) and whole extent of ac. 11-04 guntas in Survey together with an extent of Ac. 5-00 in Survey - Since land is under Urban Agglomeration of Secunderabad cantonment parties have applied for grant of exemption under provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) act (for short the ULC Act ) and government of India granted necessary permission vide letter to pattedars for registering sale deeds in favor of plaintiff in pursuance of agreement of sale - Necessary sale deeds were executed by original owners/pattedars in favor of plaintiff society as early as in year 1981-82, both in respect of land situated in Survey No. 60/1 and as well as Survey no. 62 - Plaintiff thus claims to have become owner of entire extent of land in Survey No. 60/1 and 61 of Kakaguda village - Plaintiff claims to have been put in possession of same on dates of sale - Contended that total extent of land in old Survey according to Ex. A-1 partition deed, is only ac. 33-12 guntas - Survey number was trifurcated into Survey as per entries made in Ex. A-3 Seth war of 1353 Fasli - Learned Standing Counsel points out that in paragraph 4 of plaint, total extent of trifurcated survey numbers is given as Ac. 41-32 guntas - When compared to extents of land of old survey No. 53, there is an excess of Ac. 8-20 guntas and that is almost equivalent to land that is being claimed by plaintiff - Learned Standing Counsel submits that one has to go by entries made in Ex. A-3 - Plaintiff s vendor had only Ac. 33-12 guntas and not Ac. 41-32 guntas - A perusal of entries in Ex. A-3 would reveal that details of potkarab land are not given since said extents were not assessed for purpose of imposition and collection of land revenue - It is explained in Para 4 of plaint that this Ac. 41-32 guntas of land includes an extent of Ac. 5-18 guntas of potkarab land and if said extent is deleted, total extent of land in trifurcated survey numbers would be ac. 35-14 guntas - Slight variation, if any, is always attributable to errors in survey - Contends that land registers are maintained in regular course of administration of all Cantonment lands and entries made therein have great evidentiary value - It is also contended that validity of entries made in general Land Register are not questioned and there is no declaration sought nor any specific prayer is made by plaintiff in this regard and, in circumstances, entries made therein cannot be doubted - Statutory presumption in favor of entries made in General Land Register prepared in day-to-day administration of Cantonment – Held, Court opinion that plaintiff society clearly established its title to suit schedule land - Possession of defendants is without any authority of law - Plaintiff society had lost possession sometime during year 1984-85 - Plaintiff society is accordingly entitled for declaration of its title - It is, however, urged by learned Standing Counsel that plaintiff society is estopped for recovery of possession, since it did not raise any objection whatsoever when defendants have started construction work in year 1985 - plaintiff society had allowed construction of quarters to be completed without raising any objection - Court considered opinion, submission has no merit - It is not case of defendants that suit is barred by limitation - Case of plaintiff society is that defendants have encroached into suit schedule land and made constructions. D. W. 1 in his evidence admitted that plaintiff society raised objection and protested when defendants have directed plaintiff to delete suit land for layout plan ex. B-7 - Plaintiff society in categorical terms declared that it had agreed to delete without prejudice to its rights - In circumstances, it cannot be said that plaintiff society is estopped from claiming relief against defendants - Court hold that plaintiff society is entitled for decree as against defendants 1 to 3 and 7 as prayed for except mesne profits - No relief as such could be granted as against defendants 4 to 6 and suit is liable to be dismissed against them - Plaintiff society is entitled for recovery of vacant possession of suit schedule land from defendants 1 to 3 and 7 after removal of structures made therein - Shall also be a decree for perpetual injunction in favor of plaintiff society and against defendants 1 to 3 and 7 as prayed - Court did not commit any error whatsoever in granting such relief to plaintiff and rightly decreed suit - It is admitted by plaintiff society that defendants have started construction of quarters in suit land in 1988 - It is an admitted fact that defendants have already completed construction - It is stated that after construction of quarters they are allotted to staff working in the Defence Accounts department - Course of hearing of this appeal, learned Counsel for plaintiff, submitted that plaintiff society is willing to accept an alternative suitable equivalent extent of land from defendants in lieu of suit schedule land - It is brought to notice of court that vast extent of lands belonging to defendants adjoining lands of plaintiff society are still lying vacant and same could be made available to plaintiff society and plaintiff society has no objection to accept same - Learned Counsel has gone to extent of submitting that plaintiff society has no objection whatsoever even if suit schedule land is acquired by defendants since they have already made constructions in suit schedule land at their own costs - Proposals are worth consideration by first defendant - Public interest requires an appropriate decision in matter as expeditiously as possible - Regard to facts and circumstances of case, there shall be no eviction and recovery of possession of suit schedule land for a period of eight months from to-day, in order to enable first defendant to take an appropriate decision in matter – Appeal Dismissed.