JUDGMENT :-These two second appeals are filed by the same individuals, against the same respondents. Hence, they are disposed of through a common judgment.

2. Respondents 1 to 4 filed O.S. No.299 of 1980 in the Court of the Principal District Munsif, Repalle against the appellants and the fifth respondent, for the relief of declaration, that they are entitled to remove the clay from the suit schedule property for the purpose of making pots and for consequential injunction, restraining them from interfering with their right. The pleaded that they are potters by community and from the time of their ancestors, the are using the clay from the Government lands in Sy.Nos.675, 676 and 671 of Nizampatnam Village of Guntur District. It was stated that on the representation made by the potters all over the State, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.1076, dated 21.11.1970, directing that such of the land from which the potters are removing the clay for making pots shall be entered in the Prohibitory Order Book (P.O.B.) and the suit schedule property in Sy.No.681 admeasuring Acs.7.01 cent was also entered in the P.O.B. Their grievance was that yielding to the pressure exerted by the appellants herein, the local revenue officials have deleted the suit schedule land from the P.O.B. and assigned the same in favour of the appellants. It was complained that the appellants are preventing them from using the clay.

3. The appellants and the fifth respondent filed separate written statements disputing the allegations of respondents 1 to 4. They attempted to explain the circumstances, under which, the suit schedule property was deleted from P.O.B. and pleaded that the potters of the village were using the clay in the land in other survey numbers.

4. The trial Court decreed the suit. The appellants filed A.S. No.59 of 1987 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali against the judgment and decree in O.S. No.299 of 1980. Similarly, the fifth respondent filed A.S. No.49 of 1987 against the said decree in the same Court. Though a common judgment, dated 14.2.1994, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeals. Hence, these second appeals.

5. Sri S. Srinivasa Sarma, the learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Courts below failed to notice an important 1 aspect of the matter, namely that I respondents 1 to 4 did not issue notice under Section 80 C.P.C. before the suit was filed.

He contends that the suit schedule property t was deleted from P.O.B. only after due verification by the officials of the various departments and the clay from the land is not being used for making pots. He submits that the proceedings instituted by respondents 1 to 4 are motivated, and were intended only to deprive the appellants, of the assignment.

6. Sri G. Dharma Rao, the learned Counsel for respondents 1 to 4, on the other hand, submits that once the suit schedule property was entered in P.O.B., in compliance with the order of the Government in G.O. Ms. No.1076, dated 21.11.1970, there was no basis or justification for deletion of the same, much less, for assignment of the land in favour of the appellants. He submits that the necessity to issue notice under Section 80 C.P.C. did not exist on account of the fact that no relief was claimed against the Government or its officials.

7. On the basis of the pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the three issues, as under:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs and other potters of Nizampatnam acquired easementary right to take clay earth from the suit land?

(2) Whether the Government cannot assign the suit land in favour of defendants 2 to 4 and others?

(3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

8. On behalf of respondents 1 to 4, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined:- G.O. Ms. No. 1076, dated 21.11.1970, was filed as EX.A1 and plans in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos.681 and 675 were filed as Exs.A2 and A3 respectively. On behalf of the appellants, D.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.B1 to B9 were filed. A Court witness was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document