IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, KADAPA
O.S.No.41/2016
Uravakonda Obulesu ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1) The Divisional Forest Officer
2) The Forest Range Officer
3) The Deputy Forest Range Officer
4) The Forest Beat Of ... Defendants
CHIEF-EXAMINATION AFFIDAVIT OF PW-1 WIFE OF PLAINTIFF
FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF U/O 18 RULE 4 (1) C.P.C

I Uravakonda Ramasubbamma W/o Obulesu (plaintiff) in the suit

aged about 64 years, Hindu, Agriculture, residing at Kummarampalle
village, Veerannagattu palle post, Vempalle Mandal, Kadapa district, do
hereby solemnly declare and state as follows:-

1. I am deponent herein as PW-1. I know the facts of the case.

My husband plaintiff is not able to see and identify the persons and
things due to his old age and that my husband plaintiff is not able to
walk since he is bed ridden. So I am the wife of the plaintiff able to give
evidence in this suit on behalf of my husband plaintiff as competent
witness. So I pray the Honourable court to permit me to depose as
PW-1 in this suit.

2. My husband filed this suit against the defendants for

declaration and permanent injunction.

3. I humbly submit that the paternal grandfather of the my

husband plaintiff named Ranga Dass was cultivating the suit schedule
land shown as A, B, C, D, E in the plaint plan from 1882 years UPTO HIS
DEATH IN 1920. The father of the my husband plaintiff was cultivating
the suit schedule property by raising Groundnuts, Kandi, Ulva etc, dry
crops fitm 1920 year upto his death in 1960. Later my husband plaintiff
used to cultivate the schedule property from 1960 year upto now.
Thereafter the Mandal Revenue Officer of Vempalle granted D.K.T
No.8/1401, D. Namuna in S.No.995/9 extent Acs.4.00 on 08-08-1991 to
the my husband plaintiff named Uravakonda Obulesu, Thirupal Dass,
was residing in Kummarampalle Village, H/o. Vempalle and Vempalle
 :: 2 ::

Mandal, Kadapa District. My husband plaintiff leveled the schedule

property with the tractor by spending Rs.50,000/, and brought the
schedule land fit for agricultural operations. My husband plaintiff used
to raise Paddy, Kandi, Sunflower, Groundnuts, Jonna, Dosa panta etc
crops in the suit schedule property. My husband plaintiff deposited
Rs.84,000/- to A.P.S.P.B. for installing separate transformer in 2012
year for the suit lands of the my husband plaintiff. My husband plaintiff
spent Rs.1,34,000/- for laying water pipe line and also Rs.30,000/- for
digging bore well and also spent Rs.34,000/- for Submersible motors
with pump and also fixed diesel engine with pump of 10 H.P. worth
about Rs.26;000/- in the suit property and for the purpose irrigation of
the suit lands. The diesel engine and pump was set up in 1992 to the
water bore for lifting water to the suit lands. There is no objection or
hindrance from the revenue department from the very beginning
starting from 1882 years upto now to my husband plaintiff or to his
ancestors for the possession and enjoyment of the suit property of the
my husband plaintiff for raising the crops and pumping out the water
from his bore wells to the suit schedule lands of the my husband
plaintiff. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Vempalle Mandal granted D.K.T.
patta No.8/1401 dated 08-08-1991 and granted Pattadar passbook,
title deed, Adangal, 1-B Namuna, lands Druveekarna Patram to my
husband plaintiff by stating that my husband plaintiff is the title holder
and enjoyer of the suit schedule property.

4. I humbly submit that the defendants on 28-01-2016 in the

evening 4.00 P.M. came with proclainer to the suit lands with a view to
occupy the suit schedule property by destroying the Kandi, Paddy,
seedlings, Groundnuts hayrik etc. in the suit property of the my
husband plaintiff. My husband plaintiff and my self along with our four
sons named 1) Rangaiah, 2) Lakshminarayana, 3) Lakshmi Prasad, 4)
Sreenivasulu and our three daughters named 1) Lakshmi Narasamma,
2) Indiramma and 3) Vijaya Lakshmi, all of us join together and
objected the defendants by falling down on the ground in front of the
proclainer and requested the defendants to drive the proclainer on us
numbering 9 persons if the defendants want to occupy the suit
schedule property on 28-01-2016 from 4 P.M. upto 6 P.M. Thereafter
 :: 3 ::

the defendants asked the driver of the proclainer to come back from
the suit lands of my husband plaintiff by fearing to the objections of my
husband plaintiff and our sons and daughters. The defendants are
ready to destroy the crops in the suit lands by force by driving the
proclaimer on the suit property. The defendants have no right or
authority either to destroy the crop in the suit lands or to occupy the
suit lands of my husband plaintiff.

5. I humbly submit that my husband plaintiff and his four sons

and three daughters are poor Harijanas and they are not having any
other land except the suit property for their livelihood. My husband
plaintiff and his children are living on the income of the suit property.
The defendants are ready to cause heavy loss of Rs.14,00,000/- to the
my husband plaintiff and his four sons and three daughter and their
children about 10 persons and their three daughters, if the defendants
are allowed to occupy and destroy the crops in the suit schedule
property. The suit property was assigned by the Revenue Department
(Mandal Revenue Officer Vempalle Mandal) to my husband plaintiff.
The defendants being Forest Department persons have no right or
authority to question the assignment order dated 08-08-1991 granted
to my husband plaintiff. The defendants have to bather in their forest
work in the forest area and not in the property of the my husband
plaintiff which was assigned by the revenue department. The forest
department should not interfere with the property of the Revenue
Department granted to my husband plaintiff.

6. I humbly submit that my husband plaintiff took the loan of

Rs.5,40,000/- from Government agencies as tractor loan during 2007
years by mortgaging the suit schedule property. My husband plaintiff
also borrowed loan of Rs.2,40,000/- from Koraguntapalle Lakshmi
Narayana, Dharma Reddy, Koraguntapalle Sreenivasulu, Chandrayudu
and others for developing the suit land and for agricultural purposes.
Hence, my husband plaintiff is forced to file this suit for declaration
and permanent injunction. Dakra loan amount of Rs.60,000/- was
borrowed by me and that amount was spent for the agricultural
purposes over the suit property.
 :: 4 ::

7. I humbly submit that my husband plaintiff got assignment

order for the suit land from the Government. The assignment of land
by Government to landless poor and weaker sections of the society is
not gratis, but it is constitutional obligation imposed upon state in the
nature of public assistance. So assignees are constitutional claimants
(title holders) of that property. My husband plaintiff is constitutional
claimant of the suit property. Hence, plaintiff filed the suit for
declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants who are
misusing their power against the poor Harizanas who is the plaintiff
herein who has no livelihood except the suit schedule property. The
defendants are trying to trespass into the suit property of poor
Harizanas, as private persons by use of their criminal force and
GundaYisam for knocking away the bread of the plaintiff (suit
property).

8. I humbly submit that the suit property in S.No.995/9 in an

extent of Acs 4.00 within the boundaries north-Vempalle Kondalu in
S.No.995/5, south-S.No.995/2, East-Papagni River and Gandi Anjaneya
Swamy Temple, and west-Gandikondalu. The plaintiff did not encroach
in to the forest land at my point of time. The plaintiff and we did not
occupy the land or the land in S.No.995/5 or the land in S.No.995/2.
The western side reserve forest compartment Nos 631 and 632 are not
in suit S.No.995/9 property of Acs 4.00 of the plaintiff.

9. The defendants in their written statement admitted that

reserve Forest compartment Nos.631 and 632 are situated on western
side of both suit S.No.995/9 and another S.No.995/2. The defendants
further admitted that land situated in this suit S.No.995/9 of the
plaintiff is in distant place from that of the land situated in forest
compartments Nos 631 and 632. The forest compartments 631,632
and 300 are in Gandi Kondalu and not at all situated on the suit
schedule property since the suit schedule property is evenly leveled on
the ground where in the plaintiff is carrying out agricultural operations.
The defendants are trying to knock away evenly leveled ground land of
the plaintiff by falsely stating that the suit property is in forest
compartments 631 and 632 which is against the location sketch filed by
 :: 5 ::

the defendants and also against the pleadings of the defendants made
in page No.4 pare 12 line 1 to 4 from the top and same page para 13
lines 1 to 3 from the bottom. The defendants are orally claiming the
suit property as forest land by contradicting their pleadings in their
written statement made in pare 12 lines 1 to 4 from the top and in
para 13 lines 1 to 3 from the bottom.

10(A). I humbly submit my husband plaintiff filed I.A

No.351/2016 in O.S No.41/216 against the defendants for temporary
injunction. The Honourable court on 06-09-2016 granted temporary
injunction in I.A No.351/2016 in O.S No.41/2016 by restraining the
defendants, their men, and agents from interfering with the plaintiff’s
peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property. The defendants
several times interfered with the possession and enjoyment of us even
after 06-09-2016. The petitions were also filed by us in the Honourable
court for sending the defendants to civil prison for violation and
disobedience of injunction order of the Honourable court. This
Honourable court in injunction order in I.A No.351/2016 observed that
Ex.R-1 shows that suit S.No.995/9 Acs 4.00 belongs to Uravakonda
Obulesu(petitioner-plaintiff) and Ex.R-2 R.S.R goes to show that suit
property is not forest land and that the defendant’s did not challenge
that documents of the plaintiff. The defendants did not proffer C.M.C
in appellate court against injunction orders made on 06-09-2016 in I.A
No.351/2016 in O.S No.41/2016 since the defendants are not
aggrieved by the temporary injunction orders of the Honourable court
passed on 06-09-2016.

10(B). The third defendant named Karremulla brought

proclainer on 20-09-2016 to the suit property and dug trenches by
leaving one acre of suit land in the beginning by damaging Acs.3.00 of
suit land with top width 10 feet bottom 6 feet depth 10 feet to the
length of 50 meters by damaging the suit property by rendering the
suit property unfit for agricultural operations.
 :: 6 ::

10(C). THE FOLLOWING DOCKMENTS MAY KINDLY BE

MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF AS EX:- A-1 TO
A-9:-
1) EX:-A-1 is Original D.K.T. patta No.8/1401 D-Namuna dated 08-08-
1991 issued by the M.R.O. of Vempalle in favour of the plaintiff for the
suit schedule property.

2) EX:-A-2 is Rough plaintiff plan of suit property shown as ABCDE by

the plaintiff in his plan.

3) EX:-A-3 is Original pattadar passbook No.149633 patta No.501 with

sticker and Rajamudra issued by M.R.O of Vempalle to the plaintiff for
the suit schedule property.

4) EX:-A-4 is C.C. of Adangal pahani dated 07-04-2015 issued by the

Tahsidlar of Vempalli in favour of the plaintiff for the suit lands.

5) EX:-A-5 is C.C. of 1-B Namuna dated 07-04-2015 issued by the

Tahsildar of Vempalle in favour of the plaintiff for the suit lands.

6) EX:-A-6 is C.C. of Druveekarna Patram dated 13-04-2015 issued by

the Tahsildar of Vempalle in favour of the plaintiff for the suit lands.

7) EX:- A-7 is Electricity service No. A.S.C 331 issued in favour of the
plaintiff.

8) EX:- A-8 is 1-B Namuna ROR (Bhumi records vivaramulu dated 09-08-
2015) issued in favour of the plaintiff for suit lands.

9) EX:- A-9 is Land tax receipt dated 23-06-1994 for suit survey
No.995/9 issued by V.R.O in favour of the plaintiff for suit lands.

11. Prayer:- Therefore I prays that the Honourable court may be pleased
to pass decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff by :-

(1). Declaring the constitutional claim (title and right) of the plaintiff
over the suit schedule property by granting consequential permanent
injunction in favour of the plaintiff by restraining and preventing the
defendants, their men and their agents from interfering with the peaceful
 :: 7 ::

possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule

property.

(2). Grant costs of the suit against the defendants and pass such other
orders as the Honourable court deems fit in the circumstances of the
case in the interest of Justice.

Solemnly affirm and state that the above stated facts are read over
and explained to me in Telugu and that I admit that the above stated facts
are true and correct and put her signature before me on 31St day of August
2018 at Kadapa.

Filed by me Advocate

Advocate for the plaintiff

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KADAPA
OS No: 41 /2016

Uravakonda Obulesu

…Plaintiff
Vs.

1)The Divisional Forest Officer

And 3 others

…Dafendants

CHIEF-EXAMINATION
AFFIDAVIT OF PW-1 WIFE OF
PLAINTIFF FILED ON BEHALF
OF THE PLAINTIFF U/O 18
RULE 4 (1) C.P.C

Filed by:

Sri. K. Venkata Reddy, B.Com., B.L.,

Advocate for the plaintiff,
Kadapa