THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR APPEAL SUIT No.2717 of1996 Date:07.09.2009 Between: Venkataramana and others. ..Appellants And The Land Acquisition Officer and another. ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR APPEAL SUIT No.2717 of1996 JUDGMENT: (Per AGR, J) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act’ for brevity) is directed against order dated 07.08.1996 passed in O.P.No.12 of 1990 by the Subordinate Judge, Gadwal, answering the reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act in favour of the second respondent/fifth respondent in the O.P. An extent of Ac.0.27 guntas of land in survey No.389/2 situated at Bheempur Village was acquired for the purpose of excavation of Tail Channel for the U.T. at K.M. 4.04 of right main Canal in the said Village, hamlet of Chintarevula in Dharur Mandal. The Land Acquisition Officer (L.A.O.), Gadwal, after conducting award enquiry, passed an award fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.6,000/- pr acre. When there was a dispute with regard to the title, the matter was referred to the civil Court. On such reference being made, the appellants/claimants filed the claim statement contending that they are owners and possessors of the above said land, whereas the second respondent, who was arrayed as fifth respondent in the O.P., claimed that he is the owner of the acquired land. On behalf of the appellants/respondent Nos.2 to 4 in the O.P., R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. On behalf of second respondent herein/fifth respondent in the O.P., P.Ws.2 to 4 were examined and Exs.B3 to B5 were marked. As per the revenue records, patta in respect of survey No.389 stands in the names of Thayanna, S/o Laxmanna, Ayyanna S/o Karrenna, Golla Chinna Easwaraiah, S/o Polanna, Papanna sons i.e., Venkateshwarlu, Venkat Ramana and Venkatesh and cultivators are Ramachandra Reddy S/o Shankerappa and Noka Lachmanna S/o Polaiah. in the possessors column second respondent’s name is shown. One of the appellants/claimants, sons of Papanna, who filed the claim petition claiming their right, was examined R.W.1 and he stated that the other claimants are his brothers; that the acquired land belongs to them; that Ex.B1 - copy of R.O.R. issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) shows that it was issued in favour of pattedars - Thayanna, Ayyanna, Golla Chinna Easwaraiah, Venkateshwarlu, Venkat Ramanna and Srinivasulu in respect of the land to the extent of Acs.2.33 guntas in survey No.389, whereas the appellants/claimants were shown as owners to the actual extent of Ac.0.07 guntas each, total comes to Ac.0.21 guntas only; that Ex.B2 certified copy of pahani for 1985-86 shows that the appellants/claimants are owners of an extent of Ac.0.07 guntas each, but the possessors’ column under Ex.B2 shows the name of Ramchandra Reddy and Lachmanna in respect of land to an extent of Acs.2.33 guntas in survey No.389; that Ex.B3 copy of R.O.R. issued by MRO shows that the brother of Ramachandra Reddy purchased Ac.0.28 guntas in survey No.389 from one Ayyanna, S/o Karrenna; that Ex.B4 certified copy of pahani for the year 1989-90 clearly indicates the sub-division number i.e., 389/2, which was in the name of the brother of the second respondent/fifth respondent in the O.P. and that Ex.B5 certified copy of pahani for 1988-9 also indicates the same as in Ex.B4. The second respondent herein/fifth respondent in the O.P. examined one independent witness - P.W.4 and he deposed that the brother of the second respondent/fifth respondent in the O.P. purchased the property in dispute and since the date of purchase they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. When the appellants/claimants failed to establish their possession, except filing the revenue entries in Ex.B1, the Tribunal felt that the second respondent/fifth respondent in the O.P not only established the purchase of the property by his brother and after said purchase the property was sub-divided as per Ex.B4 but also that since then they are in possession, and therefore, the second respondent/fifth respondent in the O.P. is entitled for compensation. In the absence of any evidence by the appellants/claimants to prove their possession and enjoyment of the property as the owners, the award passed by the Tribunal answering the reference in favour of the second respondent/fifth respondent in the O.P. does not call for interference. Further, we have noticed that there is no stay during the pendency of the appeal of the appellants/claimants with regard to possession. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 07th September, 2009 ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J GHN