Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : SESHACHELAPATHI
State Of A.P. - Appellant
Versus
Koneru Suryanarayana arid - Respondent
Decided On : 06-12-62
The dispute in this case is over the ownership of land formed by lateral accretion to the plaintiffs' pre-existing lands situate in an island in the Krishna river. The plaintiffs claimed that the land was formed by gradual, slow, and imperceptible means, while the government contended that it was formed suddenly due to abnormal floods. The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit for demarcation and separate possession of the accreted land adjacent to and contiguous with their pre-existing lands. Both parties appealed the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs are residents of Bobberlanka village and own lands covered by patta No. 50, which are situate in an island in the Krishna river. The river at that point is non-tidal, non-navigable, and fordable. The plaintiffs' lands originally comprised of 199 acres, but due to erosion by the river, the area was reduced to 50 acres. Despite this, they continued to pay full assessment of Rs. 700. To prevent further erosion, they planted Rellu grass, which resulted in the formation of a sand bank abutting the eastern edge of their land. Over time, silt accumulated on the sand bank, leading to an increase in the area of their land. In 1952, the government leased out the disputed land for cutting Rellu grass and also permitted others to enter upon it. The plaintiffs claimed that the accreted land belonged to them and filed a suit for possession.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the disputed land was an accretion by gradual means, but that the accretion was not only to the plaintiffs' lands in R. S. Nos. 4 and 5, but also to the government land in R. S. Nos. 6 and 15. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to the lands adjacent to R. S. Nos. 4 and 5 only. The court also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to sue in a representative capacity, that the river Krishna at the situs of the suit lanka is navigable, but not tidal, and that the estoppel pleaded by the defendants had not been made out.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit land is an accretion to the plaintiff's patta land, and whether the accretion is gradual, slow and imperceptible, and if so, what is the extent to which the plaintiffs are entitled? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to sue for possession in a representative capacity? 3. Whether the river Krishna is navigable and tidal at the place wherein the suit land is situated? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by reason of the statement dated I2th September, 1952?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the accreted land adjacent to their pre-existing lands in R. S. Nos. 4 and 5, but not to the land adjacent to R. S. Nos. 6 and 15, which belonged to the government. The court found that the accretion was formed by gradual, slow, and imperceptible means, and that the plaintiffs had not disentitled themselves from claiming the land by resorting to artificial reclamation. The court also held that the plaintiffs were entitled to sue in a representative capacity and that the estoppel pleaded by the defendants had not been made out.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the government was dismissed, and the appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed to the extent that they were not entitled to the land adjacent to R. S. Nos. 6 and 15.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree in O S. No. 67 of 1953 on the file of the Subordinate Judge s Court, Masulipatam. The suit was brought by Koneru Suryanarayana and Vemulapalli Subbayya (respondents 1 and 2 in the present appeal) on behalf of all the owners of the lands covered by patta No. 50 of Bobberlanka village claiming possession of an extent of 32 acres of land marked in the colour yellow in the plan attached to the plaint on the ground that the said land was a lateral accretion to their pre-existing lands situate in an island in the Krishna river. The first defendant to the action is the State of Andhra pradesh represented by the Collector, Krishna The 7th defendant is the Field- labour Co-operative Society, Kokkiligadda, permitted by the first defendant to occupy whole or portions of the disputed land Defendants 2 to 6 are office-bearers of the said co-operative society.
( 2 ) THE plaintiffs are all residents of the Bobberlanka village. Their lands included in patta No. 50 are situate in an island to the west of the village Bobberlanka The plaintiffs claim that at that point the Krishna river is non-tidal, non-navigable and fordable. , that their patta lands originally comprised of an extent of 199 acres and through a process of erosion of the river large portions of their lands got submerged under water, with the result that in the re-survey of 1923 their holdings had dwindled to 50 acres in extent, that nevertheless, they were paying full assessment of Rs. 700, that in order to prevent further erosion of their lands by the fluvial action of the river in S. No. 4, they took preventive steps by planting Rellu grass, that as a result from about 7 years prior to the suit a sand bank commenced to form, abutting the eastern edge of S No 4, and that by the accumulation of the silt on the sand bank there was an accession in the area of S No 4 by about the year 1950 or 1951. It is alleged by them further that, in 1952 the Government leased out the disputed land for cutting the Rellu grass and had also permitted others to enter upon it. The plaintiffs claim that the accreted land belong to them and upon that footing have asked for possession.
( 3 ) THE first defendant has filed an elaborate written statement, resisting the claim of the plaintiffs on various grounds It is alleged that at Bobberlanka the Krishna river is both tidal and navigable, that the bed of the river vests in the Government, that in the survey of 1923 it was found that the patta land of the plaintiffs consisted only of 166-34 acres and that that survey had become final and conclusive It is also alleged that by 1923 survey it was found that portions of R S Nos 4 and 5 of an extent of 17-33 acres were submerged under water, and the same not having been relinquished by the plaintiffs was surveyed as R S No 14 and designated as river poramboke The first defendant-Government states that the extent of 17-33 acres aforesaid, which pertains to R S. Nos. 4 and 5, was restored to the plaintiffs and the remaining extent of 45-91 acres was demarcated in two lots, Nos. 14 and 15. The first defendant denies that the plaintiffs are entitled to any land more than what was given to them in the manner aforesaid. The Government denies that the suit lands are accretions to the plaintiffs land by gradual means. The allegation in the plaint that the plaintiffs had taken protective measures had been in express terms denied. The Government asserts that it was perfectly entitled to deal with the suit land and auction the right to cut the Rellu grass therein in fasli 1362 The first defendant has also raised the plea that by applying for lease-hold rights in the suit lands the plaintiffs are estopped from putting forward the present claim and also that the suit as framed is not maintainable The second defendant filed a written statement substantially adopting the contentions of the first defendant and defendants 3 to 7 have adopted the pleas c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
