2003 (7) TMI 746 - HC - Indian Laws

Appeal allowed, judgment set aside. Inquiry ordered on land extent for plaintiff's patta entitlement.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment and decree of the District Judge. The trial court was directed to conduct an inquiry and submit a ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suit.2. Whether the judgment in Writ Petition No. 1065 of 1966 operates as res judicata.3. Validity of the order passed by the Board of Revenue and the High Court in WP No. 1065 of 1966.Detailed Analysis:Issue No. 1: Jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suitThe Supreme Court in *State of Tamil Nadu v. Rama Linga* held that a civil suit is maintainable even if there is a statutory prohibition, provided there is no adequate remedy available within the statute. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in *Kosuru Venkata Krishnaiah and Ors. v. Molakala Sidda Reddy and Ors.* reiterated that the jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted by the Estate Abolition Act. Thus, the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit challenging the order passed under Section 11 of the Estate Abolition Act.Issue No. 2: Whether the judgment in Writ Petition No. 1065 of 1966 operates as res judicataThe High Court in the writ petition did not conclusively determine the extent of land for which the patta should be granted but rather upheld the Board of Revenue's order based on the parties' agreement for relaying boundaries. The Supreme Court in *Mangu Ram and Ors. v. M. Venkataraman and Ors.* clarified that a High Court's decision in a writ petition does not operate as res judicata in a subsequent civil suit unless the High Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in *Mangu Ramdas v. Madurai Venkataratnam and Ors.* also held that the plea of res judicata must be based on the statutory authority's order under the special enactment. Therefore, the judgment in WP No. 1065 of 1966 does not operate as res judicata.Issue No. 3: Validity of the order passed by the Board of Revenue and the High Court in WP No. 1065 of 1966The Board of Revenue's order, which localized the land and partially granted patta, was based on a report by the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records. The civil court noted discrepancies in the survey records and the Assistant Director's report, which led to the conclusion that the northern portion of RS No. 461 is communal poramboke land. The court observed that the revenue authorities granted patta for only 194.96 acres, ignoring the Board's direction to grant patta for 436 acres. The court emphasized the need for accurate identification of the land covered by patta No. 98 and whether it extends beyond RS No. 461.The court directed the trial court to conduct an enquiry and submit a report on:1. Whether the land covered by patta No. 98 is situated only in Sy. No. 461 or extends to other survey numbers.2. Whether the northern portion of Sy. No. 461 is recorded as communal or village poramboke.3. The total extent of land in Sy. No. 461 maintaining the boundaries fixed in the 1912 survey.4. Whether patta No. 98 can be co-related to Sy. No. 461 only.The trial court was instructed to submit its report within three months, and the final orders regarding the extent of land for which the plaintiff is entitled to patta will be passed after receipt of the report.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated, setting aside the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The trial court was directed to conduct an enquiry and submit a report on the specified issues. The final orders regarding the extent of land for which the plaintiff is entitled to patta will be passed after receiving the trial court's report.