The High Court of Telangana passed a judgment on 20 January, 2023 stating that if the land belongs to the plaintiff, plaintiff is at liberty to claim compensation but he has no right to seek the relief of permanent injunction. . It was stated in the case of Dr. T. Srinivasulu vs The Secretary (APPEAL SUIT No.580 of 2006) which was passed by the single judge bench comprising of HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2Plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.29 of 2000 against the Secretary of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department and the Divisional Electrical Engineer, A.P.S.E.B for declaration to declare the plaintiff as absolute owner and possessor of the suit well which is abutting to Sy.No.266 known as Panumalla Bhavi situated at Gaddiannaram Village, Saroornagar and to grant permanent injunction restraining defendants from causing any sort of interference to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff with the suit well by way of installing any electric transformer or in any manner. Plaintiff stated that he is the owner and possessor of the lands situated at Gaddiannaram village of Saroornagar. There is an agricultural well abutting to Sy.No.266 known as Panumalla Bhavi. The said well is intervened and separated by a Government road which leads to Saroornagar from Gaddiannaram. The well along with appurtenant open land consisting of 621 Sq.yds and it is called as suit land for the sake of convenience. Originally, one Ramulamma mother of the plaintiff is the owner of the said well as well as the agricultural lands. She used to irrigate those lands through the waters of the suit well. Prior to her, her vendor enjoyed the suit well. She constructed pump room and installed electric pump set to lift the water and also erected a pipe line leading to agricultural lands. A.P.S.E.B granted agricultural service connection under V-4005 in favour of Ramulamma in the year 1960 and she was continuously paid electric charges under agricultural category. After her death, plaintiff succeeded the suit well and her lands as her only son and he is continuously enjoying the possession of the suit well. Recently, he constructed a theatre in the part of the agricultural lands and some part of the land is used for agricultural purpose and paying land revenue to the Government regularly. The suit well is presently drained up. As the plaintiff is enjoying possession of the suit well for 42 years, he has perfected his title over the suit well by adverse possession.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
If the land belongs to the plaintiff, plaintiff is at liberty to claim compensation but he has no right to seek the relief of permanent injunction. It was also observed that merely because the mother of plaintiff was using the water of the well in exercise of their easementary right over the well to irrigate their lands.. Admittedly, land is not situated in survey numbers of the plaintiff, but it abutting to Sy.No.266. In the sale deed executed in favour of the mother of the plaintiff it was not specifically mentioned that the suit well is part and parcel of the survey numbers for which plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the same. The main contention of the plaintiff is that his mother and her vendor were using the water of the well for irrigation purpose for more than 42 years and it clearly amounts to easementary rights and it will not confer any title to the plaintiff. Defendants intend to install transformer in the said place for the public purpose, therefore the trial Court considering all the aspects rightly held that plaintiff is not entitled for declaration and dismissed the suit. The trial Court also held that as the plaintiff was using the suit well since long time, defendants are directed to give priority to him to give land for the market value or basic value register as he is parting with the land with the third parties, this Court finds no infirmity in the Judgment of the trial Court and it needs no interference.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ROSHNI SABU, KERALA LAW ACADEMY LAW COLLEGE.
