IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT No.924 OF 1999 Between: Anamala Aswatha Narayana. … Petitioner And The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition Officer) and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY APPEAL SUIT No.924 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, “the Act”) is filed by the 2nd respondent in O.P.No.1 of 1994, challenging the decree and order of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovur, dated 14.10.1998, passed in the above O.P. An extent of Ac.0-20 cents of land in S.No.416-1-2 at Kammavaripalem, H/o.Bodduvaripalem village, was acquired for formation of approaches to the bridge across the River Pyderu at Kammavaripalem, in which an award No.2/93-94, dated 25.09.1993 was passed fixing the compensation for the acquired land at Rs.5,000/- per acre. Since both the appellant and the 2nd respondent, who are brothers, are claiming compensation awarded for the acquired land, the matter was referred to the civil Court by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 30 and 31 of the Act. On reference being made to the civil court, the 2nd respondent herein/1st respondent, filed a counter claiming compensation stating that the land originally belongs to Venkata Subbanaidu, father of the 2nd respondent herein as well as the appellant. The appellant murdered his another brother Ramakrishnaiah and was convicted for life and not entitled to inherit any property belonging to his deceased brother. He has been in possession of the acquired land over a statutory period of limitation, in which the appellant has no right to claim compensation. The appellant herein/2nd respondent, filed counter stating that prior to passing the award a notice was given to him to file his objections for acquisition and he also sent objections stating that the entire land under acquisition belongs to him and claimed compensation. In the partition between himself and the 1st respondent and their younger brother Ramakrishnaiah, the entire extent of Ac.1-46 cents in S.No.416/1A was allotted to the share of the appellant herein as mentioned in ‘A’ schedule of partition deed, whereas the 1st respondent and his another brother Ramakrishnaiah executed relinquishment deed on stamped papers in 1961 giving up their rights in the said Ac.1-46 cents, out of which Ac.0-20 cents of land was acquired. In 1979 the Tahsildar, Kovur gave a notice stating that the land was proposed to be acquired as house sites and on his filing objections, the said proposal was drafted recognising his right over the property and, therefore, he is entitled to compensation. To prove the respective claims, the 2nd respondent herein was examined as R.W.1, whereas the appellant herein was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent and Ex.B5-relinquishment deed was marked on behalf of the appellant. The entire plea of the appellant is that out of the total extent of Ac.1-46 cents of land, only Ac.0-20 cents of land was acquired by the Government and the balance of Ac.1-26 cents of land is still in his possession, which fact has been denied by the 2nd respondent. In spite of the specific denial made by the 2nd respondent, the appellant has not produced any cist receipts or adangals to show that he has been in possession over the said property on the date of acquisition. The entire claim of the appellant rested upon Ex.B5-relinquishment deed and claimed that there was a partition earlier and in the said partition the disputed property fell to his share. It is also not disputed that O.S.No.18 of 1974 on the file of Sub-court, Kavali was filed by the appellant against the 2nd respondent for specific performance of contract. Further the partition deed which was said to have been filed in the said suit, has not been produced and it was came to the light that the said partition deed was also not filed in O.S.No.18 of 1974, whereas the defendants in the said suit filed a registration copy of partition deed, dated 26.05.1961. But according to the appellant, some mistakes have crept in allotment of properties. If that be the case, he should have certainly produced Ex.B5 before that court, but the same has been produced for the first time in 1994, mentioning Ex.B5 in his counter. The trial court also gave a finding that Ex.B5 which was filed first time into the court on 13.08.1998, was prepared on three stamped sheets and the stamps were purchased in the name of Chittipati Venkata Subbamma of Karnapuram on 26.11.1940, who is a stranger to the family of the appellant and why the said relinquishment deed- Ex.B5 has been preserved for more than 20 years after the stamps were purchased in the name of Venkata Subbamma and how the stamp papers have come into custody of the claimants’ family, have not been explained by the claimants and moreover the said Ex.B5 is only an unregistered relinquishment deed. In view of the same, no title passes on to the appellant to claim compensation, as the 2nd respondent established that he was in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property, which fell to his share in the partition among the three brothers. In view of the same, since the appellant failed to establish his possession or the relinquishment of the rights by the 2nd respondent in favour of the appellant under Ex.B5, we do not see any perversity in the finding of the trial court. There are no merits in the appeal and accordingly, the appeal suit is dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 04.03.2010 lmv