THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.179 of 2002

JUDGMENT:

Challenging the judgment dated 12.02.2002 passed in O.s.No.531 of 1998 by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, the present City Civil Court Appeal is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration that the act of the defendant-corporation in laying a B.T. Road over the schedule property, admeasuring 907 square yards forming part of Survey No.122 in Ward 3, Block D, situated at Bahalulkhanguda, Secunderabad Mandal, Hyderabad District, without acquiring lawful right under the law, was illegal and unauthorised. The plaintiff also sought a consequential mandatory injunction directing the defendant to pay compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The plaintiff claimed ownership and possession over 10 acres and 2 guntas in Survey No.122, acquired under a registered sale deed dated 13.09.1966. In the year 1971, the Government of Andhra Pradesh acquired 0.14 guntas from this land, and later, in the year 1982, issued a notification to acquire the remaining land. The plaintiff challenged this notification in W.P.No.1330 of 1982, which was allowed. The appeal against the writ order in W.A.No.918 of 1982 was also dismissed. Subsequent attempts by the District Collector to cancel the patta were quashed in W.P.No.10085 of 1985, and this Court confirmed the same in W.A.No.1026 of 1986.

3. Thereafter, the plaintiff had obtained government permission under G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 04.02.1982 to construct an open-air theatre. The said permission was later cancelled by the Government through G.O.Ms.No.14 dated 09.01.1991. The plaintiff challenged the cancellation in W.P.No.1732 of 1991, which was allowed on 07.08.1995. Thereafter, the plaintiff faced illegal encroachments by hut-dwellers, which were removed through legal proceedings, and possession was restored to him in LGC No.2 of 1992. On 27.04.1995, the defendant-corporation allegedly laid a B.T. Road over the schedule property without acquiring title or consent. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 25.05.1995 demanding compensation. In response to W.P.No.18195 of 1995 filed by the plaintiff, the corporation claimed that the plaintiff had voluntarily permitted the laying of the road, which the plaintiff denied, stating the alleged consent letter was forged. Further, this Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the plaintiff to approach the civil Court. W.A.No.1573 of 1997, filed by the plaintiff, was also dismissed with liberty to file a civil suit within two months.

4. On the other hand, the defendant corporation, in its counter before the trial Court, contended that the plaintiff had voluntarily given consent for laying the B.T. Road and had even addressed a letter to that effect. The corporation denied any illegality or unauthorised action in laying the road, asserting that it was either already in existence or upgraded, and therefore no compensation was payable.

5. After examining the evidence, the trial Court, vide order dated 12.02.2002, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish with cogent evidence that the road in question was newly laid in the year 1995, and not in existence for the last 30 years, as contended by the defendant. The plaintiff did not examine the Advocate Commissioner who inspected the land, nor did he produce photographic or independent documentary evidence to support his claims. The trial Court noted contradictions in the extent of the alleged encroached land (767 sq.yds vs. 907 sq.yds) and found no substantiation for the compensation claim of Rs.30,00,000/-. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence, the trail Court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the action of the defendant was illegal or unauthorised and that any compensation was payable. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant/plaintiff filed the present city civil court appeal.

6. Heard Sri