CRP/5606/2010 of Mandalapu Venkata Srinivasa Rao, Vs Kadiyala Ramulu, on 31 December 2010

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 5606 and 5623 of 2010COMMON ORDER:

These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed against theorders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court),Bhadrachalam, in I.A. Nos.68 and 69 of 2010 in O.S. No.91 of2010 dated 03.11.2010.

The petitioner herein claims to be the owner of the landunder acquisition. A sum of Rs.13,06,540/- was determined ascompensation payable for acquisition of the land in question.The petitioner would contend that, after the amounts weredeposited with the land acquisition officer who, in turn, hadissued a cheque in his favour to enable him to withdraw theamount, the impugned orders came to be passed restrainingboth the Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) and theState Bank of Hyderabad, Bhadrachalam from permitting him toencash the cheque.

Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, Learned Counsel, has filed acaveat on behalf of the first respondent and as such the matteris taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

Sri P.V.Ramana, Learned Counsel for the petitioner,would submit that, since the compensation awarded to thepetitioner was for Rs.13,06,540/-, the first respondent could nothave invoked the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate(Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam as his pecuniary jurisdiction, interms of Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules, 1924, islimited only to a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Learned Counsel wouldfurther submit that, since the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (forshort ‘the Act’) itself provides for a remedy in case of genuine disputes of title, the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate(Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam is barred, and the remedy is onlyin accordance with the provisions of the Act. Learned Counselwould rely on ABC India Limited v. Government of AndhraPradesh[[1]],M.A.Jabbar v. State of Andhra Pradesh[[2]]andKrishna Pratapa Rao v. Madgi Pochaiah[[3]].

Sri Kowturu Vinay Kumar, Learned Counsel for the firstrespondent, would submit that the suit as filed is for a bareinjunction restraining the Special Deputy Collector (LandAcquisition) and the State Bank of Hyderabad, Bhadrachalamfrom paying money to the petitioner and, in terms of Section26(c) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits ValuationAct, 1956, the suit has been rightly valued at Rs.1,000/-.

A perusal of a copy of the plaint filed in O.S.No.91 of2010 would reveal that the first respondent herein (the plaintiff inthe suit) had claimed title over the land under acquisition on thebasis of an oral sale in the year 1969, and to have been put inpossession thereafter. It is on this basis that he claims to be theowner of the land, and to be entitled for possession. The relief,however, is only to restrain the petitioner herein from receivingcompensation, and the Special Deputy Collector (LandAcquisition) and the State Bank of Hyderabad, Bhadrachalamfrom paying compensation in respect of the schedule land. Inthe suit in O.S. No.91 of 2010 the petitioner does not even claimthat compensation should be paid to him.

I n M.A.Jabbar[2], asuitwas filed to declare that thedemand of Rs.60,500/-, claimed by the government as abkariarrears, was illegal; and for an injunction restraining thegovernment from proceeding to recover the said arrears. The suit was valued at Rs.5,100/-, and not for Rs.60,500/-. TheCourt-fee was paid on the suit valued at Rs.5,100/-. A DivisionBench of this Court held that the relief sought by the plaintiff hadto be valued on the basis of the advantage that he would gain,or the loss he would avoid; in case the demand made by thegovernment was allowed to stand, he would suffer an injury orloss to the extent of Rs.60,500/-; and, there was no suggestionthat the government would not be in a position to recover thesaid amount. The Division Bench held that the suit, therefore,had to be valued for Rs.60,500/- and not Rs.5,100/-.

In Krishna Pratapa Rao[3], a suit was filed to restrain thedefendants from cutting 5055 gulmohwa trees standing in thepatta lands of the plaintiffs; and, while the total value of thetrees was around Rs.3.00 lakhs, the suit was valued at Rs.500/-. This Court, relying on the judgment of the Division Bench inAndhra Pradesh State Electricity Board v. K.R.Reddy[4], heldthat the advantage, which the plaintiffs seek to gain, or the losswhich they seek to avoid, must be decided with reference to theallegations in the plaint; by virtue of the injunction sought for bythe plaintiffs, they would get the advantage of retention of thetrees standing in the patta lands; the suit would have to bevalued on the value of the trees standing in the patta lands; andthe valuation of Rs.500/- was wholly improper.

I n ABC India Limited[1], a suit was filed seekingpermanent injunction against encashment and/or payment ofmoney in pursuance of the bank guarantees furnished by thesecond defendant-bank at the instance of the plaintiff (revisionpetitioner); the bank guarantees furnished, in connection withthe execution of a contract, was worth Rs.32,82,350/-; theplaintiff’s contention was that the government should not invoke or encash the bank guarantees, which were furnished by thesecond defendant-bank at the instance of the plaintiff; theinevitable result of encashment of the bank guarantees was tofasten liability against the plaintiff to the extent ofRs.32,82,350/-; injunction was sought by the plaintiff only toavoid loss on account of payment of the aforesaid amount bythe bank to the government; encashment of the bankguarantees would result in the petitioner being exposed to theliability to a tune of Rs.32,82,350/-; and the suit was, therefore,undervalued.

In the present case, the loss which the first respondentseeks to avoid, as a result of the compensation being paid tothe petitioner, is Rs.13,06,540/- and as such the suit could nothave been valued at Rs.1,000/-.

Since it is not in dispute that the pecuniary jurisdiction ofthe Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court), Bhadrachalam isonly Rs.5,000/-, it is evident that the suit as filed is beyond hispecuniary jurisdiction. Further, the Land Acquisition Act itselfprovides a remedy in case of genuine disputes regarding titleover the land and the person to whom compensation is requiredto be paid, in which event, it was also open to the respondent-plaintiff to invoke the remedy under the special statue and notby approaching the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Mobile Court),Bhadrachalam.

Viewed from any angle, the orders impugned in theserevision petitions cannot be upheld and are, accordingly, setaside.

The Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, allowed.

Date:31.12.2010usd

[1]1998(5) ALD 399[2]1969(1) An.W.R. 411[3]1983(1) ALT 147

4AIR 1977 AP 200

RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J