The High Court · 2025

Judgment

Challengir-rg the judgmr:rrt <iated 12.02.20.).) passed in O.s.No.53l r,l' 1998 by the learired V Senior Cii 1 ,Ju<lge, City Civil Courts, []vdcrabad, Lh,J i:esr.nt Cin,Civil Oo. rt /rppci:l is filccl.

2. Thc brrcl'lacts of'the c:lsc arc th.1t thc plain 'tl ill,:<1 a suit seeking a dcclirrertiorr that the act o[ i]ie defendzr,:'.cor-poration in taying a B.T- Ro;rd c',,er ti-tc schcciulc jlropen\'. : dmeasuring 9O7 square yarrls hrrrning p:rrl ol Sun,cy No. l2 -l in Warcl 3, Block D, sitlrated at Berhalulkhanguda, Secuncierr1rad Mand:rl, Hyderabad L)isrrict, u,it[.rout :rcquiring iau.ful r-igl uncier thc Iaur, was ilie;3a1 and unzruthoriseri. 'l'ire plair-rtili Llso soLreht a consequential rlandatory injunction directing thc lLeiet Ldant to pay compensation undcr the provisions oi the Lar ri Acrluisition Act. The plrinti[f claimcci orvnership anci poss,:s. ron or.er I 0 acres and !l grtntas in Sunc], No.l22, a.cqltitifl under 2 rcgistered salc deed dated 13.O9.1965. [n the ',.,: r' 1(]71, the Government of Antlhra Pradesh acquired 0.14 gurr, rs from this rF_t!k! \1...t'ltt {a:.:, 2 SKS,J CCCA.t{o.179 of 2002 'il ' land, and later, in the vear 1982, issued a notihcation to acquire

the rcmaining land. Thc plaintiff challenged this notihcation in W.P.No.1330 ol 1982, '"r,hich lr,as allorved. Thc appcal againsr the writ order in W A No.918 of l9B2 u,as also dismissed. Subsequent atlempts by thc District Collector to cancel the patta were quashed in W_P.No.lOO85 of 1985, and this Courl conhrmed the same in W,A.No.1026 of 1986_

3. Thereafter, the plaintifl had oblained government permission under G.O.Ms.No. 152 dated 04.02.1992 to construct an open-air the atre. The said permission was later cancellecl by the Governmcnt through G_O_Ms.No.14 dated O9.01.1991. The plaintiff challenged the cancellation in W.p.No .7732 of 1991, which r,r,as allorvcd on O7.08.1995. Thereafter, the plaintiff faced illegal encroachments by hut-dwellers, which were removed through legal proceedings, and possesslon was restored to him in LGC No.2 of 1992. On

27.O4.7995, t!;re defendant-corporation allegedly laid a B.T. Road over the schedule property r,r,ithout acquiring Litle or consent. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 25.O5.1995 demanding compensation. In response t"o W.p.No. 18195 of 1995 hled by the plaintiff, the corporation clairned that thc plaintiff had -' .;.t:ir:i.r:?*1 . ,l', - SKS,J C:l( A.No.179 of 2OO2 voluntarily permitted the laying of the road, u'hich tht plaintiff dcnied, stating the alleged consent ietter r.r,as forsr:d. Further, this Court drsposed oF the $,rit petition, directing,, [t..t: plaintiff to approach the civil Court. W.A.No.1573 of 19(-rl , hied by the plaintiff, was also dismissed with liberty to fllc a c.i,ii suit rvithin t$,o months.

4. On the other hand, thc dcfendanL corl). r rtion, in its counter bcfore the trial Court, contended tlrat tir:; pi:Lintiff had voluntarill. given consent for laying the B.T. Roa-l r'nd hird evelr addressed a letter to that effect. The corporatio: denied any itlegality or unauthorised action in laying the r rrLd, asserting that it rvas eithcr already in existcncc or ulrgracled, and therefore no compensation was payable.

5. After cxamining the evidence, the [rial C]olr:-t, uirle c:rder dated 12.O2.2OO2, dismissed the suit holding Llrir L the plaintiff had failed to establish with cogent evidence th..t the road in question was neu,ly laid in the year 1995, and n,, in :xistence for the last 30 years, as contended by the dctndant. The plaintiff did not examine the Advocate Comnrissioner u,ho inspected the land, nor did he produce phr>r.og1ap1-ri. o. independent documentary evidence to support LLis claims. The 4 SI{S,J CCCA.No.l?9 of 2oo2 n' f' trial Court noted contradictlons in the extent of the alleged encroached land (7 67 sq Yds vs substantiation for the compclls'ttloll claim of Rs.3O,O0,OOO/ - 907 sq.Yds) and found no Intheabsenceofclcarandctlrrvirrcingevidence,lhetrarlCourt conciucled lhat the plaintiff lailed to prove thc action of the defendant was illegai or unautl-rorised and that any compe nsation was payable Aggrieved there bv' appellant/ plaintiff liled thc plcsent cih' civil court appeal'

6.HeardSriG.KrishnaMurthy,lcarnedcounseiappcarlng on behalf of the appcllant as well as Sri G Madhusudhan Reddy, learncd Standing Counsel tbr GHMC appearing on behalf of the resPondents. Learned counsel for thc appellant submitted that the 7. Judgment passed by the Lrial Court rvas contrary to lau" weight of evidence, and the probabrlities of the case and that the trial Court failed lo properly apprcciate the scope of the suit' which wasbasedontheunauthorisedlayingofaB.T.Roacloverthe private land of the appellant wilhout initiating acqulsrtlon proceedings or paying compensation as required under Lhe Land AcquisitionAct.Hefurthersubmittedthattheappellanthad purchased the suit land admeasuring Ac lO O2 guntas in ; I t :;;r '{ l.t .,,,' ,./ 5 C l( ^.No.179 SKS,J of 2OO2 Sv.No.122 under a registered sale deed dated 13 O9 1956 and remained in possession and cnjoyment ever sincr, rncl that the Government had earlier acquired only O.14 €aun1-. s for a public purpose in the year 7971 and had again attemp cd to acquirc thc remarning land in the year 1982, but thc sitic notillcation \r,as quashc(l by this Court in W.P-No.133O of I982, and the order was confirmed in W.A.No.918 of 1982. He lurther submitted that when the District Collector initiatcc[ proceedings to c:rnce1 thc patta of the appellant's vendor, tli: sitme r,r,as qu:rshed ly t.his Court in W.P.No. iO085 of I985, :. ud the appeal g,as dismissed in W.A.No.1026 of 1986.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant c,ri rlcndcd that although the appellant had been granted cx:mption for construction of an open-air theatre, il was latcr can:ellcd by thc Government through G.O.Ms.No. i4, which was ats o sct aside by thc High Cotrrt in W.P.No.1732 of 1991 and that ir1 ,er rcgaining possession of the land through proceedings in IGC No.2 of 1992, L}:'e respondent corporation had, without issuing any notice or initiating acquisition, laid a B.T. Road ov:r'907 square yards of the appellant's land on 27.04.7995. 'll'rough a legal notice was issued on 25.05.1995, there was no tr:sponse from @.'l--::€1b; !'''.:j{'& \:"r:.i$Xl: 6 SI(S,J CCCA.No.179 of 2OO2 the defe ndant. When the matter u,as taken to the High Court in W.P.No.18195 ol 1995, the CourL direcred rhe appellant to approach the Civil Court, and the said or-der u.as confirmecl in W.A.No.1573 of 1997. He further contencled that the report of the Advocate Commissioner marked as Ex.A11, along rvith other documentary evidence from trx.A1 to A12, clearly demonstrated the title and possession of the appcllant over the land and the fact that the road was newly laid and not an upgrade of an existing road. He asserted that the Lrial Court errcd in discarding the report of the Commissioner mcrely because photographs were not enclosed, despite the fact that [he report was no[ disputed or objected to by the defendant and thar the defendant neither filed a written statement nor disputed the appellant's ownership or the encroachment. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the judgment of the trial Court by allou,ing this City Civil Court Appeal.

9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent opposed the submissions made by the learned counsei for the appellant stating that therc was already an existing road in the subject land and that the Grcater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) had not laid any new I SKS,J Clli A-No.179 of 2OO2 road as alleged by the appellant. He further subnri:ted that the r,vorks under-taken by the GHMC r,\'ere onl]' in lirc ttature o[ repairs to the pre existing road. Therefore, he iuqued Lhat the appellant was not entitled to any compensation, ,-r; lhcre \ ras no fresh encroachment or acquisition of land. Her:c:, he prayed the Court to clismiss the appeal.

10. Nou,, the poinls that arise for determinatior n the appcal 1 W}-,ether the appellant/ piaintiff has estab is,hed thirL the respondent/defendant unauthcrrisedly lairl a new B.T. Road over the schedule prof erty without acquiring the land ald without initi:ting proccedings under the La:rd Acquisition Act') Whcthcr the appellant/ plaintiff is entitlcd o a declaration and consequential malct:'torl inj unction directing the respondent/defend,lrt to pal, compensation for the alieged encroaclrrrenl of ?07 sq. yards of land? Point Nos.i and ii: 1 I . In the light of the submissions made b\- thc learned counsel for both parties and on careful perusal ,){ the material available on record, it appears that the centlal issue for 8 SKS,J CCCA.No,179 of 2OO2 ]\\ determinalion is whether the B.T. Road laid by the responden t/defendant over the schedule propert)' r.as a ncu,l), laid road or an old existing road that \:as merely repaired. The documents marked as Exs.A1 to A1O are certihed copies of various orders passed in writ petltions and writ appeals filecl before Lhe High Court, along with the legal noticc issucd by thc appellant. trx.A11 is the rcport of ttre Advocate Commissioner appointcd in W.P.No.18195 of 1995 by thc ltigh Court. As per the report, the Advocate Commissioner u,as directed to visit the disputed land, take measurements of the road allegedly laicl by the GHMC, and identify the total area occupied lor the purpose of laying the road.

12. The report discloses that the Comrnissioncr gavc duc notice to the learned counsel for both parties as well as the Executive Engineer, Circle 5 of the GHMC, and conducted an inspection in the presence of the parties and their representatives. The Commissioner inspected the land in question, measured the road, visited the surrounding area, took photographs, and demarcated the encroached portion into three segments. It was specifically noted that the total length of the road was 92 running meters, with a width o[ 89 meters. The j. 9 SKS,J (l( C A..No.179 of2OO2 encroachcd rtrea was shor,r'n in the sketch :rpl .ndecl 1o thc report

13. IIor,r.cr,'r.r, thc triirl Court erroneously conclr cjed rhat thr: rotrd hild bet.n in cxislcncc ior the past 30 years irnd that ncr ncs' road had been laicl by GHMC, without .rpprr:cia:ing thc contcnts o[ tre Commissioner's report. Morer im[,ortantlv, the Advoc:rtc Conrmissioner, whose report is central to the disputc, 1\,.1s noL cxtrmined eis a witness before the t:ial Court. Furthcrmorc, GHMC failed to file an-v writren :i1 ttement or procllrcc anv officia] record to support its claim thzrt only repairs were carricd out on an existing road.

14. [n the zLbscnce of proper oral and documenta y eviclence frorn both parties, the disputed question, whe lher r.be road is er nelv r:ncroachment or an old road merely repairecl. cannot bc conclusivcly clcciclcd. TI-re lrnding of the trial C rrrrL in this regard was prematurc and not based on completc evidence. I Therelrrre, the judgment of thc trial Court daterl 2.O2.2OO2 passed in O.S.No.S31 of 1998 is liable to be set aside, and the matter is renanded to the trial Court with rILc follou,ing directions: 10 SKS,J CCCA.No-179 of 2OO2 The appellant/piaintiff ls pcrmitted to adduce further evidence, including examination of the Advocatc Commissioner who submitted Ex.A I 1 . The rcspondent/ defendant GHMC is directed to hle a uritten statement ar-rd produce the relevant municipal records, if any. to clari[l whether rhe road in question was neurly laid or al old road that was repaired.

15. Further, the trial Court shall provide reasonable opportunily to both(parties to lead cvidence ard therc:rfter decide the matter afresh in accordance with 1aw

16. With the above directions, the City Civil Court Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SD/. N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The V Senior civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRI G KRISHNA MURTHy Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI c MADHUSUDHAN REDDY (SC FOR GHIUC) tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies ADK/PST, \q- I { HIGH COURT DATED:19t4812025 JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DTI,AFTS CCCA.No.179 of 2002 /:' /; : \\.) ',i, rt ( ? I 'lli lffi C)\ ,( 1ii-,:.,'n.,t')f _:_-- -i: .-/ DISPOSING OF THE CCCA WITHOUT COSTS "odd Vr- 4 '11GR* IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: '179 OF 2002 Between: Shri Gopal lnani, s/o. Bansilal lnani, aged 57 years, Occ. Business. R/o.15-9-56, l\/aharajgunj. Hyderabad. ...AppellanUPlaintiff AND The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund, Hyderabad, rep by its Commissioner and Special Officer. Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 12-02-2002 made in O.S.No 531 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the V Senior civil Judge. Crty Crvil Court. Hyderabad. ...Res po ndenUDefenda nt This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI G KRISHNA MURTHY, Advocate for the Appellant and of SRI G IMADHUSUDHAN REDDY (SC FOR GHIMC) for the Respondent. - , - Covrld. This Court doth Ordr:r and Decree as follows: 1 That the CCCA be and hereby is disposed of, 2. That there sh ?ll be no order as to costs in thrs appeal SD/- N. SRIHARI I)EPUTY REGISTRAR 1 //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The V Senior civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2 Two CD Copies AI)K/I'SI- U5- HIGH COURT DATED:1910812025 DECREE CCCA.No.179 ot 2002 DISPOSING OF THE CCCA WITHOUT COSTS ^(ct\ ( (-,\' ' \ &^',