IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 22303 of 2008 Between: Maddipati Narasimha Murthy S/o. Late Narayana Murthy Markapur, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur, Prakasam District. 3 The Tahsildar, Markapur, Prakasam District. 4 The Village Revenue Officer, Markapur, Prakasam District. 5 Sri Siddam Venkata Siva Kumar S/o. Guravaiah ..RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 4 in removing the name of the petitioner and including the name of the 5th Respondent in the Revenue Records and in the Notification in respect of the land to an extent of Acs 8.93 cents owned by the petitioner in Sy.No. 1304/1` and 1304/2 of Markapur, Prakasam District and in taking steps to pay the compensation to the 5th unofficial Respondent as illegal, contrary to Sec. 31(1) and 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 apart from violative of Art. 14, 21 and 300(A) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to substitute the name of the petitioner in place of the unofficial Respondent in the records and Notification and pay the compensation to the petitioner as he is the owner of the above mentioned land. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VENKATA RAO Counsel for respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION Counsel for respondent No.5: MRS D.GEETHA The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 4 in removing the name of the petitioner and including the name of respondent No.5 in the revenue records and in the land acquisition notification in respect of land of an extent of Acs.8.93 cents owned by the petitioner in Survey Nos.1304/1 and 1304/2 of Markapur, Prakasam District and in taking steps to pay the compensation to respondent No.5 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Section 31(1) of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 (for short “the Act”) apart from being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. According to the petitioner, he purchased an extent of Acs.7.93 cents vide sale deed No.1974/95 dated 02-11-1995 and Ac.1.00 vide document dated 19-02-1996 and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. While that being so, respondent No.1 issued notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. In the said notification, the petitioner’s land was shown for acquisition, but surprisingly, respondent No.5’s name was shown as the owner and possessor of the said land. As he is the owner, the petitioner immediately after the notification got issued a legal notice to the respondents and on receipt of the said notice, respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to appear before him on 14-07-2008 with all documents in support of his claim. According to the petitioner, he appeared before respondent No.2 and submitted all necessary documents in support of his claim. After completion of hearing on 14- 07-2008, respondent No.2 has not sent any intimation to the petitioner regarding his claim. According to the petitioner, it was reliably learnt by him that respondent No.2 and other respondents are taking serious steps to release the compensation in favour of respondent No.5. Further it is the case of the petitioner that he filed O.S.C.F.R.No.2758 dated 30-09-2008 before the Senior Civil Judge, Markapur for declaration of title of the land in dispute and the same is pending. Hence, this writ petition. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.5 and it is stated that the petitioner sold the property to the vendor of respondent No.5 on 14-08-1998 under an unregistered sale deed; that respondent No.5 purchased the same in the year 2000 again under an unregistered sale deed and that the sale was regularized, mutation was affected and pattadar passbooks have been issued in his favour. The petitioner having sold the land in 1998, taking advantage of executing an unregistered sale deed, is trying to knock away the compensation. The petitioner has no right or title to the property and the petitioner had not objected at the time of mutation of the name of respondent No.5 in the revenue records or issuance of pattadar passbooks in his favour. From the above, it is clear that there is a serious dispute as to the title of the subject land between the petitioner and respondent No.5. In these circumstances, it is not proper on the part of the Land Acquisition Officer to decide serious questions of title for the purpose of payment of compensation. Therefore, respondent No.2/Land Acquisition Officer is directed to refer the matter to the competent Civil Court for adjudication of title between the petitioner and respondent No.5 and he is further directed to deposit the compensation amount of the subject land before the Civil Court forthwith. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Dated 28th January, 2009 vrn