The central legal point established in the judgment is the municipality's liability to provide compensation for acquired land under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, and the requirement for evidence to support valuation claims.

JUDGMENT :

This regular appeal under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.39 of 1994 dated 10.10.2001 on the file of the Court of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada.

2. The plaintiff, before the trial Court, is the appellant. The respondents herein are the defendants.

3. The appellant instituted the suit against respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for the site acquired by the Municipality for public purpose.

4. During the pendency of the suit the sole appellant died and his legal representative was added as appellant No.2, vide orders dated 05.12.2017 in A.S.M.P.No.2893 of 2017.

5. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings.

6. The case of the appellant/plaintiff in brief in the plaint was as follows :

(i) He purchased Ac.0.81 cents in old S.No.205/2 and new S.No.187/4, 187/10 and 187/11 of Narasanna Nagar, Hamlet of Suryaraopeta, Kakinada under a registered sale deed dated 26.11.1980 and out of it, the plaint schedule is a part.

(ii) Without informing and without giving any notice to him, a road is formed by the Municipality in the year, 1992 on the northern side of the said land about ‘40 x 200’ in total 869 sq.yards. Having observed the formation of road by the respondents, the appellant requested them for allotment of alternative site in any nearby layout area from the military road to Avakayala Company road. He also submitted a letter dated 01.01.1993 for allotment of alternative site. But there is no response from the Municipality.

(iii) Then he got issued a legal notice dated 16.08.1993 and there is no reply from them. The market value of the said land is Rs.450/- per sq.yard. Hence, the suit for compensation.

7. The respondents/defendants denied the allegations in the plaint and contended in the written statement as follows :

(i) There is a mud road used by the public since time immemorial and the same is belongs to the Municipality. The Municipality passed a resolution No.693, dated 11.11.1991 for formation of gravel surface road to a width of six (6) meters with a length of 310 meters from Military road towards West upto Puntha road i.e., Avakayala Company road on the existing mud road.

(ii) While formation of gravel surface road, the respondent Municipality has marked the site belongs to them in the existing mud road and the same is exclusively belongs to the Municipality. So the appellant is not entitled for compensation for the site on which the road was formed and also not entitled for getting any alternative site.

(iii) There is no cause of action for the suit and the issuance of legal notice and the allegations are false. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

8. On these pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial :

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount? and

6. To what relief?”

9. At the trial, on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined while relying on Exs.A.1 to A.5 in support of his contentions. On behalf of the respondents/defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B.1 was exhibited.

10. Basing on the material and evidence, trial Court came to conclusion that the appellant is entitled for Rs.42,120/- towards compensation with proportionate costs and subsequent interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of suit till realization, thus, partly decreed the suit against the respondents.

11. It is against this decree and judgment, the appellant/plaintiff preferred the present appeal.

12. Heard Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. Even though sufficient opportunities availed by the learned counsel for the respondents, no arguments are advanced.

13. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before