1

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

W.G.DIST: ELURU

A.S.No. /2017

Between :

1. The District Collector, W.G.,Eluru

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Eluru, W.G. … Appellants/Defendants

And

Sri Muvva Lakshmana Rao … Respondent/Plaintiff

AN APPEAL AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGEMENT DT. 23-06-2017

MADE IN THE SUIT IN O.S.No. 186/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE’S COURT: ELURU AND MADE :

---

Between :

1. Sri Muvva Lakshmana Rao .. Plaintiff

And

1. The District Collector, W.G.,Eluru

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Eluru, W.G. … Defendants

MEMORANDUM OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL PRESENTED ON BEHALF

OF APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS UNDER SECTION 96 AND ORDER 41,
RULE 1 OF CPC.

---
1. Appellants/Defendants :

1. The District Collector, W.G., Eluru, Collectorate Compound, N.R.Pet.,

Eluru., W.G., EJCJC.

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru, Collectorate Compound,

N.R.Pet., Eluru., W.G., EJCJC.

2. Respondent/Plantiff :

Sri Muvva Lakshmana Rao, S/o. Hanumantha Rao, Hindu, Male, Aged
65 Yrs., Properties, R/o Vanguru Village, Pedavegi Mandal, EJCJC.

3. The address for service of summons, notices and process etc., on

the appellants is that of their counsel and Govt. Pleader,

Sri CH. VENKAIAH, B.A.LLB., DEE, LLM & LLM, R.V.Ramarao Street,
 2

N.R.Pet., Eluru and that the address for service of summons, notices and

process on the respondent is as mentioned in the long cause title above.

4. INTRODUCTORY FACTS :

i. It is humbly submitted that the Appellants herein are

defendants in Lower court. Similarly, the respondent herein is Plaintiff

in the Lower Court. It is submitted on behalf of appellants/defendants

that the above suit in O.S.No. 186/2008 was filed by the

respondent/plaintiff on 24-04-2008 (Twenty Fourth Day of April Two

Thousand Eight) in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru for a

declaration that the notice vide Roc.No. 1454/VAN/2005/DTP,

Dt. 13.02.2008 issued by the 2nd Appellant/Defendant requesting

Respondent/Plaintiff to repay the excess amount of Rs. 5,68,823/- which

was received by him on behalf of his son Sri Muvva Rahul for excess teak

trees along with compensation amount in LA matter is null and void,

illegal and un-enforceable under law and consequential relief of

injunction restraining Appellants/Defendants and their men and staff

from enforcing the said notice Dt. 13.02.2008 and for costs etc.

ii. The Lower court on an erroneous appreciation of facts and law

decreed the suit filed by Respondent/Plaintiff by its decree and

judgement Dt. Dt. 23-06-2017 (Twenty Third Day of June Two Thousand

Seventeen) and as such the Appellants/Defendants preferred this appeal.

5. The above named appellants/defendants begs to prefer this

Memorandum of Appeal for the following among, other.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

i. The Decree and Judgement of the Lower Court in O.S.No.

186/2008 Dt. 23-06-2017 (Twenty Third Day of June Two Thousand

Seventeen) is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the

case.
 3

ii. Because the Lower Court erred in holding all the issues in favour

of the Respondent/Plaintiff without appreciating the rival contentions,

both oral and documentary evidence available on record.

iii. Because the Lower Court ought to have seen that the Land covered

under the acquisition belongs to Muvva Rahul who is son of the

Respondent/Plaintiff and hence plaintiff has no right to maintain the

suit without any authorization from his son Rahul and the plaintiff

did not show in the cause title name of his son Muvva Rahul rep. by

his agent Muvva Lakshmana Rao and that is fatal to the case of the

plaintiff as suit is not properly instituted.

iv. Because the Lower Court ought to have seen that the specific case

of the Appellants/defendants 1 and 2 is that the Respondent/Plaintiff

has given and undertaking at the time of payment of compensation

amount mentioned in the Award on behalf of his son that he would

return back the excess amount if paid by mistake and failed to pay as

per his undertaking though PW1 also admitted about giving undertaking

to that effect in the Cross examination PW1.

v. Because the Lower Court ought to have seen that at the time of

inspection during the acquisition proceedings the officials found 565

Teak Trees in Ac. 1-68 cents situated in R.S.No. 57/1B and 54 Trees in

Ac. 1-72 cents situated in R.S.No. 58/1 of Vanguru Village accordingly

they determined the value of same including compensation amount at

Rs. 26,23,903/- and paid the same to the plaintiff, who received the

same on behalf of his son and that but on re-verification by joint

inspection team they found some discrepancies as against earlier

findings and according to their report they found 488 Teak Trees in

Ac. 1-68 cents in R.S.No. 57/1B, and 54 Teak Trees in Ac. 1-72 cents in

R.S.No. 58/1 and basing on the said inspection they determined the

value including compensation at Rs. 20,55,080/- and payment of excess

 4

amount of Rs 5,68,823/- was made and hence, the 2 nd Appellant/

Defendant, LAO/RDO, demanded the plaintiff to return the same to

Government under Ex.A1 suit notice.

vi. Because the Lower Court ought to have seen that the

evidences of DW1 and DW2 coupled with Exs. B1, B2 and other

documents of Appellants/Defendants proves their claim as genuine and

the Lower court ought to have dismissed the suit instead of decreeing the

same.

vii. Because the Lower Court ought to have seen that the reported

Judgement of Hon’ble High Court in 2010 (1) ALT at P: 185 between

G.Muneswaram vs. Chief Commissioner of Land Administration,

Hyderabad and others is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.

viii. Because the Lower Court ought to have seen that

Respondent/ Plaintiff had given undertaking admittedly to return the

amounts if paid excess by mistake and the Respondent/Plaintiff is

estopped from going back from such undertaking.

ix. Because the Lower Court erred in decreeing the suit instead of

dismissing the same.

x. Because the findings of the Lower Court on issues 1 to 3 which

are directly connected with the subject matter of the suit, are incorrect

and unsustainable under law ignoring the admission made by PW1 in

Cross examination to the effect that undertaking was given to the

Government Officials for return of money at the time of receiving

compensation on behalf of his son Sri Muvva Rahul to the effect that any

excess amount received will be paid back to the Government.

xi. Because the Lower Court ought to have seen that the suit has filed

by the Respondent/Plaintiff is not maintainable under provisions of Civil

Procedure Code because whenever a suit has to be filed against

Government Official it has to be filed mentioning in the cause-title the

 5

State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its District Collector and LAO/RDO, but,

this suit is not property instituted.

6. VALUE OF THE APPEAL :

In the Lower Court, the relief of Declaration

that the notice sent from the office of
2nd Defendant Vide Roc.No. 1454/VAN/2005/DTP),
Dt. 13.02.2008 Claiming an amount of Rs. 5,68,823/-
on the ground that Government made excess
payment to the plaintiff and for return of payment
is null and void and consequential relief of
injunction Restraining the defendants, their
men, and staff from enforcing the said notice
is valued under Sec. 24(D) APCF & SV Act,
1956 at Rs. 5,68,823-00

On which a Court Fee of Rs. 8,126/- is paid under sec. 20.

Sch. I Art. 1© of A.P.C.F. & S.V.Act, 1956 in the Lower Court.

The same Court Fee as in Lower Court i.e., Rs. 8,126-00 is

payable as in Lower Court U/sec. 20 Sch.I, Art-I( c) of APCF & SV Act,

1956 r/w Sec. 49 of APCF & SV Act, 1956.

As the State Government rep. by District Collector and LAO/RDO,

Eluru filed the appeal the payment of Court Fee is exempted.

The value of the appeal for the purpose of Court Fee and

Jurisdiction is same i.e., Rs. 5,68,823-00.

For these and other grounds, those may be urged at the time of

hearing of the Appeal, the appellants/defendants pray that the Hon’ble

Court may be pleased to set-aside the decree and judgement

Dt. 23-06-2017 (Twenty Third Day of June Two Thousand Seventeen) in

O.S.No.186/2008 of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Eluru and

allow this Appeal with costs through-out by dismissing the suit.

Be pleased to consider,

Eluru,
Datr : Counsel for Appellants/
defendants.