http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2630  of  1989

PETITIONER: M/S. PRAGA TOOLS CORPORATION LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. MAHBOOBUNNISSA BEGUM & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/05/2001

BENCH: V.N. Khare & S.N. Variava

JUDGMENT:

(With C.A. Nos. 2763-64/1989, C.A. No. 2762 of 1989 and C.A.Nos. 4874-75 of 1989)

J U D G M E N T

S.N. VARIAVA, J. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   All  these  Appeals  can be disposed of by  this  common Order.   Parties are being referred to in their capacity  in Civil Appeal 2630 of 1989.

   Briefly  stated the facts are as follows.  In the  State of  Andhra  Pradesh  there are two adjoining  villages  viz. Moosapet  and Kukatpalli.  Kukatpalli was a khalsa  (dewani) village where the lands were held by patedars.  Moosapet was sarfe-khas  village.   Sometime  in 1963 the  Government  of Andhra  Pradesh  (Respondent 10) allotted lands in  Moosapet village  in favour of various parties.  Whilst so doing  the Respondent  10  allotted  to Appellants (M/s.   Praga  Tools Corporation  Ltd.) an area of 195 acres 33 guntas in  Survey No.   210/1 in Moosapet village.  Possession was then  given to Appellants.

   Immediately on the transfer of land Smt.  Mahboobunnissa Begum  and ors.  (Respondents 1 to 9) filed a Writ  Petition before  the  High Court of Andhra Pradesh claiming that  the Government  had  purported  to  allot  to  Appellants  lands belonging to them without having acquired the said land.  It was claimed that the lands, which were allotted and of which possession  was given, bore Survey Nos.  362 to 373 and part of  survey  No.   374 of Kukatpally village.  In  this  Writ Petition  the  Government filed a counter affidavit  stating that  there  was a dispute as to the question of title.   On the  basis  of this counter affidavit the Writ Petition  was dismissed with directions to approach the Civil Court.

   In  December 1974 Respondents 1 to 9 filed Suit No.  102 of  1975  seeking possession over the land in dispute or  in the alternative compensation for illegal dispossession.  One Amina  Begum (Respondent 11) had also filed Suit No.  12  of 1974  claiming to be the owner of the same land.  It must be mentioned  that  Respondents  1  to 9 claimed  as  heirs  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

previous owner Ghulam Khader.  Respondent 11 made a claim to these  lands on basis of an alleged Sale Deed in her  favour from the said Ghulam Khader.

   On  20th  April, 1982 the trial Court decreed  Suit  No. 102  of 1975 and dismissed Suit No.  12 of 1974.  Appellants and  the Respondent 10 (Government) were held to be  jointly and  severally  liable  to pay compensation  for  the  lands wrongly  taken  over.  Against the decree dated 20th  April, 1982,  Appeals were filed both by the Government as well  as Appellants.   An  Appeal  was also filed  by  Respondent  11 against  the dismissal of her suit.  All these Appeals  were decided  by the High Court by a common Judgment dated 9th of September,  1988.   By  this Judgment the  Appeal  filed  by Respondent 11 (Amina Begum) was dismissed.  The Appeal filed by  Appellants  (Praga  Tools  Corporation  Ltd.)  was  also dismissed.   However, the Appeal filed by the Government was allowed  in part to the extent that it was held that as  the Government had handed over to Appellants only an area of 195 acres  and 33 guntas, the compensation which was to be  paid was only in respect of 195 acres and 33 guntas.  It was held that  if there was any excess land, over and above 195 acres and   33  guntas,  that  was   certainly  the  property   of Respondents 1 to 9.

   As  against  this  Judgment Appellants has  filed  Civil Appeal  No.  2630 of 1989.  The State of Andhra Pradesh  has filed  Civil  Appeals bearing Nos.  2763-64 of  1989.   Smt. Mahboobunnissa Begum & Ors have filed Civil Appeal No.  2762 of 1989 and Amina Begum has filed Civil Appeal Nos.  4874-75 of 1989.  Between Respondents 1 to 9 and Respondent 11 there were conflicting claims in respect of the suit property.  As stated  above Respondents 1 to 9 claimed the lands as  heirs of  Ghulam  Khader.  Respondent 11 claimed the lands on  the basis of an alleged Sale Deed.  Both the trial Court as well as  the Appellate Court have recorded findings of fact  that Amina Begum has not been able to prove the Sale Deed.  These findings  of  fact  are  based on evidence and  we  find  no infirmity in the Judgments of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate  Court  in  this behalf.  Therefore the  claim  of Respondent 11 (Amina Begum) cannot be upheld and Appeal Nos. 4874-75 of 1989 stand dismissed.  We have heard the parties. In  spite  of  voluminous record the dispute is  capable  of resolution quite easily.  Respondents 1 to 9 claim ownership of   Survey  Nos.   362  to   373  in  Kukatpalli   village. Government  of Andhra Pradesh claims no right in Survey Nos. 362  to  373 of Kukatpalli village.  The  Government  claims ownership of and has allotted to Appellants lands on footing that they are part of Survey No.  210/1 of Moosapet village. The  main question is whether these lands are in Survey Nos. 362  to 373 of Kukatpalli village or they are in Survey  No. 210/1  of Moosapet village.  If the lands are in Survey Nos. 362  to  373 of Kukatpally village then the  Government  has wrongly   allotted.   In  that   case  appellants  and   the Government  are to pay compensation as directed by the trial Court.   On  the other hand if the lands are in  Survey  Nos 210/1  of  Moosapet village Respondents 1 to 10 can have  no claim.

   These  Appeals  reached hearing on 18th November,  1993. After briefly noting facts this Court observed as follows:

   "All  the  appeals were decided by the High Court  by  a common  order.  However, it may be stated that the claim  by the  Government was that it owned extensive area in  village

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

Moosapet:   one of such Survey Nos.  was 210/1 which had  an area  of nearly 400 acres, and that it was out of this  that 195  acres  were settled in favour of Praga  Tools.   Ghulam Khader  on the other hand appears to have had extensive area in  adjacent  village Kukatpalli.  The High  Court  observed that  initial survey in Kukatpalli village was done in  1299 Fasli  and revision survey took place in 1347 Fasli, whereas initial  survey in Moosapet Village took place in 1328 Fasli and the revision survey was an error in preparing the survey maps for these two villages, and if the survey maps of these two  villages were placed side by side there was overlapping of each other to a substantial extent.  It, however, did not decide  the extent of over lapping.  Further, the High Court found  that factually it appeared to be correct that  Ghulam Khader  who was the owner of Survey Nos.747/8, 10, 11 and 12 and  Survey No.  378 area 90 acres whereas the corresponding two  Survey  Nos.  362- 373 comprised an area of 210  acres. But  it  again did not decide whether this increase in  area from 90/95 acres to 212 acres was due to erroneous inclusion of  Government  land  or Ghulam Khader  in  the  intervening period  became  owner of more land.  The High Court  assumed that  Survey Nos.  362-373 comprising 210 acres did in  fact belong  to Ghulam Khader and that the difference in the area between old survey numbers and new corresponding numbers was of little consequence."

   This  Court  then remitted the matter back to the  Trial Court  for  determination of the following points  with  the following observations :

   (1)  Whether the land given to Praga Tools  Corporation ltd.   is out of Survey No.  210/1 in Moosapet village?   Is there  any overlapping in Survey No.  210/1?  If so, to what extent?   Is there overlapping in any portion of Survey Nos. 362-373 and 374?

   (2)  (a) What was the total holding of late Shri  Ghulam Khader  in village Moosapet and Kukatpalli villages prior to the revision survey?

   (b)  Whether  the  lands  in Survey  Nos.   362  to  373 correspond to the area of land in old survey numbers?

   (c)  How  90/95 acres of land in Kukatpalli  village  in name  of  Ghulam  khader  became 212  acres  in  new  survey numbers?   Was  the  increase as a result  of  inclusion  of Ghulam  Khader’s own land from other survey numbers or  from adjacent  villages  or it was due to erroneous inclusion  of Government land?

   Before  recording  findings  on these issues  the  trial court  shall got the land surveyed and determine if the land alienated  to Praga Tools is in fact situated in  Kukatpalli village  or Moosapet village.  It shall be open to the court to get it surveyed either by appointing a lawyer who is well versed  with survey work or by appointing higher officer  of the survey department, preferably the Director of Settlement and  Survey,  or any independent agency having expertise  of survey.  The survey shall be done after giving notice to all the  parties  concerned, preferably in their  presence.   No objection to survey report shall be entertained by the trial court.

   The  court  shall  permit  the parties  to  adduce  such evidence as they consider necessary subject to relevancy.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

   The  findings  shall  be remitted to  this  Court  after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned on or before expiry of six months from today."

   Pursuant  to  the  above   directions  the  trial  Court appointed  the  Director  of Survey,  Settlements  and  Land Records and Collector, Hyderabad District as a Commissioner. The  Commissioner  conducted  the survey and gave  a  Report wherein  he purported to answer the questions posed by  this Court.  The Commissioner also gave an additional report.

   The  trial  Court  thereafter, by its Order  dated  16th October,  1998, held that this Court has remitted the matter back  to  it for recording findings.  The trial  Court  held and,  in  our  view, correctly that it was the  trial  Court which  had to give the findings and that the  Commissioner’s Report  was merely an aid to it.  The trial Court  permitted the   parties  to  adduce   evidence  and  lead  documentary evidence.   After considering all material and evidence  the trial Court answered the queries posed by this Court.

   Briefly stated the findings of the trial Court are :

   (a)  that the boundary dispute between village  Moosapet and  village Kukatpalli had been resolved long back and that there was no subsisting boundary dispute at present

   (b)  that  Survey No.  210/1 was deleted  from  Moosapet village and Survey Nos.  362 to 373 were included as land in Kukatpalli village in the name of Ghulam Khader,

   (c)  that the Suit lands were in Kukatpalli village  and they  did not form part of the Survey No.  210/1 in Moosapet village,

   (d) that the land given to M/s.  Praga Tools Corporation is not out of Survey No.  210/1 of Moosapet village but that they  are  part  of  Survey No.  362 to  373  in  Kukatpalli village,

   (e)  that the increase in land holding of Ghulam  Khader was  because certain Pot Karab (waste land) were earlier not included  in  the revenue records and by counting  them  the acreage  came to 218 acres.  The Trial Court also found that Ghulam  khader  had  inherited lands of  his  sister  Khader Unnissa  Begum  and  the  addition of  those  lands  further increased his holdings.

   These  findings  of  the trial Court  are  now  assailed before us.  It has been submitted that the Plaintiff’s claim must  be restricted to what had been claimed by them in  the plaint.   In the plaint the Plaintiffs claim is to lands  in Survey  Nos.  362 to 373 in village Kukatpalli.  As has been found  by  the trial Court even presuming that this area  is restricted to what is claimed in the Plaint, it comes to 218 acres.   What  has been given to Appellants is 195 acres  33 guntas.   This  has  been given on the basis that  this  was Government  land  in Survey No.  210/1 in Village  Moosapet. Once  it  is  found that this is not a part  of  Survey  No. 210/1 of Moosapet village, it automatically follows that the decree of the trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court, is correct and cannot be interfered with.

   The  State of Andhra Pradesh has filed objections to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

findings  of  the trial Court.  On behalf of Appellants  and the  State of Andhra Pradesh it was submitted that the trial Court  could  not have discarded the findings of  the  Court Commissioner.   It  was submitted that as per the Orders  of this  Court,  it  was  only  this  Court  which  could  hear objections  on  the report of the Commissioner.  We  see  no substance  in this submission.  This Court had directed  the trial  Court  to record findings.  The trial Court may  have appointed  a Commissioner to carry out survey but ultimately the  findings  had to be recorded by the trial  Court.   The report of the Commissioner could only be an aid to the trial Court  in  arriving  at its findings.  The Trial  Court  has allowed  parties  to  lead  oral   as  well  as  documentary evidence.   The trial Court has complied with the directions of this Court.

   It  was next submitted that there was a boundary dispute between  Kukatpalli and Moosapet villages.  It was submitted that  the dispute has not yet been settled.  It is submitted that  till  this  dispute  is   settled  the  claim  of  the Respondents  1 to 9 cannot be upheld at all.  In this behalf it  is  necessary  to set out the relevant  portion  of  the averments  in the objections raised by the State before this Court.  They read as follows:

   "(f) Issue No:1 raised by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is "whether the land given to Praga Tools Corporation Limited is out of Survey No.210/1 in Moosapet Village? Is there any overlapping in Sy. No.210/1? If so to what extent ? Is there over lapping in any portion of Sy. Nos.:362-373 and 374".

   The  answer  given by the trial court is that  the  land given to M/s.  Praga Tools Corporation Limited is not out of Sy.No.210/1  of  Moosapet  village  and   they  are  in  the Kukatpalli village in Sy Nos.362 to 373 and that Sy.No.210/1 of  Moosapet is not in existence as it was deleted and there is  no  overlapping  in  Sy.No.210/1   or  any  portion   of Sy.Nos.362 to 373 and 374.

   The  answer given by the trial court to the 1st issue is not   correct  and  satisfactory   one,  because  there   is overlapping  in  the  above village and the matter  not  yet finalised  by  the Competent authorities and at no point  of time Sy.No.210/1 Moosapet village was deleted as per Revenue records.

   It  is pertinent to mention that while deciding boundary dispute  between  Kukatpalli  and   Moosapet  villages,  the Commissioner,  Survey Settlements & Land Records,  Hyderabad in  his  order dated 28.10.1978 held that the  Supplementary sethwar of 1964 showing Sy.No.210/1 shall continue to remain in  Moosapet village and Col.  Safdar Ali Mirza is  entitled to patta rights over Sy.No.210/1 in Moosapet village.

   Aggrieved   by  the  order   of  Commissioner,   Survey, Settlement  &  Land Records dated 28.10.1978, the  Collector filed  a revision petition under section 166-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli in the court  of  Hon’ble Revenue Minister.  The Government in  its order  dated  10.4.1992 stayed the order of Commissioner  to the  extent  treating  the Government  land  in  Sy.No.210/1 admeasuring  Ac.500-00  as  patta land of Col.   Safdar  Ali Mirza.   The  Revision Petition is not finally disposed  off due  to pendency of (4) civil appeals in the Hon’ble Supreme

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

Court.

   In  a civil suit filed by Smt.  Mahboobunnissa Begum the Addl.   Chief  Judge,  Hyderabad  in  O.S.   No.102/75   dt. 24.4.1982  decreed that the land handed over to Praga  Tools in  Sy.No.210/1 of Moosapet village is part of Sy.No.362  to 373  of  Kukatpalli  village which is a patta land  of  Smt. Mahboobunnissa  Begum  and  awarded  compensation  of  Rs.40 lakhs.   Aggrieved by the said order, Government filed  CCCA 9/83  which was partly allowed by High Court.  The State  of Andha  Pradesh filed C.A.No.2763-64 of 1989 which is pending before the Supreme Court.

   Due  to different stand taken by different  authorities, the  Supplementary  Sethwar  of  1964   has  not  yet   been implemented  in  Revenue  records and boundary  dispute  and overlapping   of  Sy.No.210/1  of   Moosapet  village   with S.Nos.362 to 373 of Kukatpalli village remains unsettled."

   As  is being pointed out hereafter, the above  averments that  the  boundary dispute between Moosapet and  Kukatpally village  is still pending is contrary to Government  records and  to averments in Suit No 102 of 1975.  It is a pity that a  Senior Officer of the rank of Secretary to the Government makes  false  averments  before a Court of law.   More  than anybody  else Government and its officers are expected to be honest  with Courts of law and not take up a patently  false stand.  If an officer of this rank cannot be honest with the Court  then one wonders how he can be trusted to hold such a high position.  This Order is to be brought to the notice of the  Chief  Secretary who should warn the concerned  officer not  to repeat such behavior and to keep the warning in  the file of the officer.

   That this is a false case is clear from the following:

   (a)  In the written statements filed in this Suit it has been averred as follows :

   "1.  In respect of the allegations in paragraph No.  (1) of  the  plaint,  it is submitted that the suit  lands  were involved  in  a  overlapping  case  with  certain  lands  of Moosapet  village.   In  this connection,  the  Land  Record Assistant,  Hyderabad  District, in file No.G1/914/63,  made certain  proposals  regarding  the overlapping of  lands  of Moosapet  and  Kukatpalli  village and set the same  to  the Director   of   Survey   &   Settlements,   through   letter No.G1/914/63  dated  25.10.1963.  The Director of  Survey  & Settlement  while forwarding a copy of the decision taken in the year 1299 fasli, instructed the Land Record Assistant to implement  the  orders passed in the year 1299  fasli.   The land  Records  Assistant  was  also directed  to  refix  the boundaries  of  the Kukatpalli Village as per  the  Revision plan.   Thereupon,  Kharij Jama Patrak was prepared  by  the Land Record Assistant and sent to the Director of Settlement for  approval  and  after his approval  Zamima  Sethwar  was issued  in the year 1964.  Under that Sethwar certain survey numbers  were deleted from Moosapet village while  retaining in Kukatpalli village.  But until the Zamima Sethwar of 1964 was  issued  the  Revenue Record showed that  the  lands  in question  i.e.,  the  suit lands were  Government  lands  in survey  No.210/1, Moosapet village.  Consequent to the issue of  the Zamima Sethwar of 1964, the lands in question  being retained  in Kukatpalli village bear the survey numbers  362

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

to  373  and part of Government land in S.No.374.  From  the Revenue Records of Kukatpalli village it is obvious that one Smt.   Mahaboobunnissa  Begum  was owner of the  said  lands which  were  shown as Kancha lands admeasuring 212 acres  16 guntas."

   Thus  in  this  suit it is admitted  position  that  the boundary dispute had been settled;  that certain Survey Nos. were   deleted  from  Moosapet   village  and  retained   in Kukatpalli  village;   that  Survey Nos.  362  to  372  were allotted  to  Kukatpalli  village and stood in the  name  of Mahboobunnissa Begum.

   (b) the same averments had also been made in the written statement  of the Government in an earlier Suit bearing  No. 332 of 1987 wherein it is averred as follows :

   "15.   It is submitted that there is no boundary dispute between  Mossapet and Kukatpalli villages.  This dispute  is already  settled  in  the  year   1858  Fasli  by  the  then Commissioner,  Survey and Settlements.  The said decision is final.  At present there is no boundary dispute at all."

   Thus  at  all stages Government has itself been  stating that  the  boundary dispute is no longer pending.  All  that the  Government  was claiming was that the  concerned  lands were  in survey No.  210/1 of Moosapet village.  Now that it has  been found that the lands are in Survey Nos 362 to  373 of Kukatpalli village a patently false case and the bogey of pending  boundary  dispute is being raised.  It is indeed  a pity  that a high official of the Government now chooses  to take  an contrary and false stand.  Such practice has to  be deprecated in no uncertain terms.

   The fact that there is no longer any boundary dispute is clear  from  numerous  other records and documents,  all  of which  are of the Government.  All these documents are  also marked as exhibits in Suit No.  102 of 1975.

   On  16th of January, 1968, the Collector has written  to the  Secretary to the Government Revenue Department wherein, in  the context of the claim made by Respondents 1 to 19, it is  pointed out that a revised settlement of the  Kukatpalli village  was in force and that the claim of the owner to the land  would  have  to be accepted.  In this letter  it  was, inter alia recorded as follows :

   "The  Director, unearthed the old records and found that a decision regarding this boundary dispute was already taken in  1299  Fasli.  While sending a copy of this  decision  he gave  detailed instructions to the Collector LR quoting this decision  with a direction to implement the same.  The  Land Record    Assistant   sought     clarification   about   its implementation.   The  Director  in reply  stated  that  the decision of 1299 Fasli should be implemented by refixing the boundary  of  Kukatpalli  village as per the  revision  map. Thereupon   the  Joint  Collector   and  Collector   ordered preparation  of  Kami  and Jasti Patrak.   The  Director  of Settlement  approved the Kami Jasti sent by the Land  Record Assistant  and a Zamine Sethwar has been issued in pursuance of the same.

Xxx                             xxx

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

   It is seen from the said files that the boundary dispute between  Kukatpalli  and  Moosapet  was  existing  when  the official  language  was persian and even before 1299  Fasli. Kukatpalli  was a (Khalsa) Devani village and Moosapet was a Sarfekhas  village.  This boundary dispute in those days was decided  by two agencies, one by a panch Shaikpet Ailiah  by name,  who was the Malipatel of Shaik village and the  other Sri Masheeduddin, Assistant Director, Settlement (Khalsa) in 1299  Fasli.   The  Panch  gave a  decision  which  was  not acceptable to the Diwani authorities.  Sri Masheduddin, gave a  decision  which also was not acceptable to the  Sarfekhas authorities.   The then Superintendent, Settlement  (Khalsa) Shri Vasudev Rao by name approved the decision in 1300 Fasli and get the same implemented through Shri Venkateshswami Rao on  13.2.1301  Fasli.   This   decision  of   Superintendent Settlement  was  communicated to the Govt.  in  the  Revenue Department.   The Revenue Secretary, Shri Bharoucha  ordered that  the  decision  should be taken at a joint  meeting  of Khalse and Sarekhas survey and settlement officers.

   Pursuant to the above orders joint survey and inspection by  Khalsa  Officers  and Sarfekhas officers were  done  and decision  was arrived at accepting the decision given by Sri Masheeduddin,  Assistant Director, Settlement in 1299 Fasli. The  Government  (Revenue  Department),  files  bearing  No. 130/86  (Misc.  Revenue) of 1345 Fasli, 1/22 of 1324  Fasli, and 62/86 (Settlement) of 1349 deal with the instant case as there  are references available in the files of Director  of Settlement  quoted  already.   The  Director  of  Settlement (Khalsa)  issued order No.  628 dated 11.3.1350, to  correct papers as per traverse boundary of Kukatpalli and closed the file."

   Also  on  record is another letter dated 28th May,  1970 from  the Collector to the Joint Secretary to the Government Revenue  Department.  Here again it is emphasised that there is  no  boundary  dispute between  Kukatpalli  and  Moosapet village.   It  has been recorded that certain  numbers  have been deleted from Moosapet village and have been retained in Kukatpalli village.

   By  another  letter  dated  31st   of  July,  1973,  the Collector  again points out that Survey No.210/1 of Moosapet village  has been deleted and that the land allotted to M/s. Praga  Tools Corporation Ltd.  falls within Survey No.   362 to  373 of Kukatpalli village, which is a patta land.  It is suggested  that proceedings for acquisition of this land  be taken  up  as  land had already been given  to  Praga  Tools Corporation  Ltd.  In October 1979, the Government issued  a Notification  which  is  Gazetted  on  30th  October,  1979. According  to  this Notification certain lands which are  in Kukatpalli  village  are  now transferred  to  Qutubullahpur village.   Among the lands which were in Kukatpally  village and  which are now transferred to Qutubullahpur villare  are Survey Nos.  362 to 373.  Thus the Government recognized the fact  that  Survey  Nos.  362 to 373 in  Kukatpalli  village existed.   The  Hyderabad  Urban Development  authority  has issued a letter dated 24th September, 1976 pointing out that Survey  No.210/1  of  Moosapet village stands  deleted  from their records.

   There  are  number of other documents also on record  of Suit  No 102 of 1975.  The trial court has noted them.   For purposes  of this Order the above are sufficient to conclude that  the findings of the trial Court on the question raised

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

by  this Court are absolutely correct and unassailable.  One further fact must be mentioned.  If, as now falsely claimed, there  was  a pending boundary dispute and it had  not  been resolved  whether  these  lands were to be  in  Moosapet  or Kukatpalli  the  Government could not have allotted  to  the Appellants.  An allotment could only take place after such a dispute  was  resolved.  It is thus clear that the State  of Andhra  Pradesh  has  purported to  allot  Appellants  (M/s. Praga  Tools  Corporation  Ltd.)   lands  belonging  to  the Respondents  1  to 9 without acquiring the same and  without paying any compensation for the same.  The trial Court, was, therefore,  right  in decreeing the Suit and  directing  the State  as  well  as M/s.  Praga Tools Corporation  Ltd.   to jointly  and severally pay compensation.  The High Court was right  in  confirming this Decree.  The High Court was  also right  in  holding  that what the State had taken  over  and handed  to Praga Tools Corporation Ltd.  was only 195  acres and  33  quntas.   Compensation could thus be paid  only  in respect  of  this area.  The High Court has amply  protected Respondents  1 to 9 by observing that they remain the owners of  the remaining land.  As stated above Respondents 1 to  9 have  also  filed Appeal No.  2762 of 1989.  It  is  against that portion of the Judgment restricting the compensation to 195  acres and 33 qunthas and reducing the rate of  interest to  6  % p.a.  We see no infirmity in the Order of the  High Court.  Appellants and Government are only liable to pay for the  land  wrongly  taken over.  As only 195  acres  and  33 gunthas  were taken over they only have to pay for that  The interest  has  been rightly fixed at 6% as, at the time  the land  was taken over, this was prevailing rate of  interest. Civil  Appeal  No.  2762 of 1989 also stands dismissed.   In this view of the matter we see no reason to interfere in any of  the Appeals.  Accordingly Civil Appeal No.  2630 of 1989 filed  by M/s.  Praga tools Corporation Ltd.;  Civil Appeals Nos.   2763/64  of  1989 filed by the Government  of  Andhra Pradesh and Civil Appeal No.  2762 of 1989 stand dismissed.

   There shall be no order as to costs in all the Appeals.