Y. V. ANJANEYULU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a typical case in which the parties are arrayed against each other for a sum of Rs. 156/-which the respondent herein contends that it is entitled to claim and recover as betterment contribution from the appallant and the appellant resists it. The long and chequared history of this dispute, which started in the year 1997, demanded attention of the First Additional district Munsif, Ncllore in O. S. 314/77, of ibe Additional District judge, Nellore, in Appeal Suit No. 162/78 and of this Court in the present appeal. Tha erudition of the laaraed counsel ably representing the parties on either side and the Ability of the judges in resolving this seemingly triffing dispute are put to test in this casa.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF is the appellant in this appeal A suit was filed before the 1st Additional District Munsif, Nellore, in O. S, 314/77 seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant-Municipal council, from collecting rs. 156/- by way of additional betterment contribution from the appellant. The trial Court, after framing appropriate issues, held the matter in favour of the appellant nnd decreed the suit granting a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff restaraining ilia defendant-Municipal Council, from collecting Rs. 156/- by way of additional beltennent contribution from the appellant. Against the judgment of the trial court, the defendant filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Nellore in Appeal Suit No. 162/ 78 challenging the correctness of the decision of the trial court in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Additional District Judge nellore reversed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the suit, it is against the learned Additional District Judge, Nellore, that the appel lant filed this appeal in this Court.

( 3 ) IT would appear that the State Government sanctioned a scheme for extension of the Nellor etrunk road on the eastern side. The town planing scheme was sanctioned by the State Government under Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Town Planning Act, 1920 (Act VII of 1920) (Hereinafter for short referred to as the Act ). It is common ground that the State Government appointed an arbitrator after ths scheme has been sanctioned for discharging certain duties as per Section 27 of the Act. The arbitrator is inter alia empowered under clause (d) of Section 27 of the act to determine, in reference to the claims made, the properties which are liable to the betterment contribution under Section 23 and estimate and record their market value at the date of the notification. The arbitrator appointed by the Court entered upon his duties. On 15-6-1957 a notice was issued to the appellant requiring him to pay betterment contribution in terms of Sec. 20 of the Act m respect of 25 1/4 ankanams of land. It is not clear from the pleadings what happened subsequent to this notice. There was apparently no responsc from the appellant till 1974. A second notice was isiued on 22-2-1974 requiring the appellant to pay betterment contribution in respect of 33 1/2 ankanaras of land, as against the extent of 25 1/4 specified in the notice originally issued on 15-6-1957. It appears that the appellant did not respond to this notice either. A third notice was issued on 7-1-1976 reiterting the earlier claim for payment of betterment contribution in respect of 33 1/2 ankanams of land. After the receipt of the third notice, the appellant seems to have objected to the mention of the extent of land ax 33 1/2 aukanams and claimed that the actual extent is only 25 1/4 ankanams. The extent of land as 25 1/4 ankanams was arrived at with reference to the documents in the possession of the appellant. It is not in dispute that the appellant was the owner of the house and site bearing No. 254 in Ward No. 15, Brindava nam, Nellore town. The said property was purchased by his uncle and at the time when it was originally purchased under the registered sale deed d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document