HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.2916 of 2008 Date: October 19, 2009 Between: 1. G. Vittal and 7 others. … Petitioners And 1. Special Deputy Collector (LA), Unit VI, ORR, Tarnaka, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents * * * ORDER: G. Vittal and others, the writ petitioners, filed the present writ petition for a writ of Mandamus declaring the Award proceedings General/regular Award No.7 of 2007 in File No. L.A. Unit VI/ORR/15/2005, dated 24.11.2007, of respondent No.1 in so far as the land admeasuring Ac.0-01 ½ guntas in survey No.121 and Ac.0-19 guntas in survey No.172 of Muthangi village, Patancheru Mandal of Medak District in favour of respondent No.2, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, against the Principles of Natural Justice, contrary to Land Acquisition Act, null and void and consequently direct the first respondent to refer the title dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent to civil court under Section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience) and pass such other suitable orders. 2. The first respondent filed W.V.M.P.No.2158 of 2008 to vacate the interim order made in W.P.M.P.No.3785 of 2008 in W.P.No.2916 of 2008, dated 14.02.2008. Likewise, the second respondent in the writ petition also filed W.V.M.P.No.736 of 2008 in W.P.M.P.No.3785 of 2008 in W.P.No.2916 of 2008 to vacate the interim order. A reply affidavit also had been filed on behalf of the petitioners. 3. Sri Bathini Paparao Goud, learned counsel representing the writ petitioners had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and also the respective stands taken in the counter-affidavits and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances the writ petition to be allowed. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the Award and also the representation-objection of the first petitioner and the objections filed by petitioners 3 and 4 and the objections filed by 5th petitioner and the objections filed by petitioners 6 and 7 and the objections filed by 8th petitioner and also the legal notices and the mortgage bonds with the Co-operative Bank along with the translated versions. The learned counsel pointed out that in the light of the facts and circumstances and the clear averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, even if the respective stands taken in the counter-affidavits to be taken into consideration, in the light of the material available on record, the writ petition to be allowed. 4. On the contrary, Sri Y. Ravindra, learned counsel representing first respondent had taken this Court through the counter-affidavit filed by the first respondent and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances the writ petition to be dismissed. 5. Sri K. Chidambaram representing Sri C. Pratap Reddy, learned counsel representing the second respondent had taken this Court through the contents of the counter-affidavit and also pointed out to the copies of the sale deeds, the copy of demand notice, copy of the payment receipt issued by Gram Panchayat, copy of the certificate of encumbrance of property, copies of adangals and pahanis, copies of particulars of charges creating a company, copies of certificate of encumbrance, copies of permission, copies of letters, notices and also the translated versions. The learned counsel pointed out relating to the different steps taken and also explained the scope and ambit of Sections 30 and 31 of the Act and further pointed out to the specific stand taken in the counter-affidavit and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances the writ petition to be dismissed. 6. The counsel on record relied on certain decision as well to substantiate their submissions. Heard the counsel on record, perused the respective pleadings of the parties and also the material papers placed before this Court. 7. The relief prayed for by the writ petitioners in the present writ petition already had been specified supra. The first petitioner had sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and it is stated that the other petitioners also are having common cause, since the main Award is common and the relationship between the writ petitioners also had been explained and the particulars and details also had been furnished. 8. It is averred in para 4 that the first respondent issued 4 (1) notification on 21.4.2005 in A.P. Gazette and followed it in other vernacular newspapers and notified in the locality, in respect of an extent of Ac.0-01 ½ guntas in Sy.No.121 and Ac.0-19 guntas in Sy.No.172 of Muthangi village, among others for laying Outer Ring Road. It is also stated that on considering the objections, Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette on 18.4.2006 and followed it in other vernacular newspapers. 9. Further it is stated that though the petitioners are the actual owners of the lands in question, they were not issued any notice with regard to the Award proceedings. However, having come to know the on-going Award proceedings, the petitioners submitted their objections on 18.6.2007, 17.9.2007 and 14.8.2007 requesting the first respondent not to release the compensation to the second respondent in respect of the petitioners’ lands. The petitioners also got issued legal notice on 02.9.2007 with a request to pay the compensation to the petitioners and not to the second respondent. 10. It is also averred that along with the individual representations they also enclosed copies of documents relating to their title, however, the first respondent requested their advocates to submit title documents in respect of which receipt acknowledging surety documents in Telugu also had been submitted to the first respondent within the time stipulated. It is also stated that neither the petitioners nor their advocates received any notice of hearing before passing the Award by the first respondent after submission of the above documents. However, the first respondent issued Award proceedings in File No. LA-Unit VI/Orr/15/2005, dated 24.11.2007- General/Regular Award No.7 of 2007 and only one copy of the Award was given to the petitioners on 04-02-2008 by obtaining acknowledgment. 11. Further it is averred that in above Award the first respondent had not considered their objections or dealt with it, but had taken into consideration of the representations of the second respondent only and Awarded an amount of Rs.12.74,405 in respect of total land of Ac.1-04 ½ guntas and ordered to be deposited in ICICI Bank, Begumpet Branch, Hyderabad, to the account of the G.E. Godavari Engineering Ltd., second respondent herein. 12. It is also averred that in the Award of the first respondent seems to have been carried away by the correspondence with a bank and also relied on sanction of loan to second respondent in an amount of Rs.205.0 million by the said bank against the surety of the land acquired by the first respondent including land in Sy.No.173. 13. It is also averred that in the first para of the Award it was observed as hereunder: Further on verification of documents of G.E. Godavari Engineering Ltd., it is observed that an amount of Rs.205.0 million was sanctioned to G.E. Godavari Engineering Ltd., (borrower) by ICICI Bank and a mortgage by constructive delivery of title deeds was created by G.E. Godavari Engineering Ltd., on 30.7.2007 to the ICICI Bank, Begumpet, Hyderabad, in respect of its immovable property i.e., all the places and parcels of land admeasuring Ac.6-27 guntas in Sy.Nos.121, 172 and 173 together with all buildings and structures and all plant and machinery attached to the earth situated in Mutangi village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak district. 14. Based on the above observations, respondent No.1 passed the Award in favour of the second respondent and ordered for deposit of the Award amount in the said ICICI Bank to the account of respondent No.2. 15. It is further stated that when the petitioners themselves and through their advocates had lodged protest and objections and specifically requested respondent No.1 not to pay the compensation amount to respondent No.2 claiming title to themselves, the first respondent, being the Land Acquisition Officer, is bound to refer the compensation issue and the title dispute over the disputed land to the civil court under Section 31 of the Act. But strangely, the first respondent passed Award in favour of respondent No.2. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition had been filed. 16. In the counter-affidavit filed by R-1 averments in detail had been made and apart from the said counter-affidavit D.N. and D.D. Gazettes, copies of objection petitions and notices issued to the petitioners, copies of notices, copy of the Award, acknowledgment of copy of Award, copy of panchanama also had been placed before this Court. Specific stand had been taken by the first respondent that the petitioners are not the owners of the land in question i.e., in Sy.Nos.121 and 172 as per the revenue records of an extent Ac.1-10 guntas and Ac.4-02 guntas. It is further stated that for formation of Outer Ring Road, the Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette ORR.No.108 on 21.4.2005 and in two daily newspapers i.e., Deccan Chronicle dated 26.4.2005, Andhra Bhoomi, dated 26.4.2005, and it was also published in the locality on 2.5.2005. 17. It is also averred that in response to the Draft Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act and general notice issued in Form-3, dated 23.5.2005, objection petitions were received from the following institutions/companies. 1. Charminar Papers Ltd., dated 27.5.2005 2. Kanuri Family Trust, dated 21.5.2005 3. GEI Godavari Engineering Ltd., dated 21.5.2005 and 19.12.2005 4. Sandvik Smith Asia Ltd., dated 27.5.2005 Enquiry under Section 5-A of the Act was conducted on 23.02.2006 (to G.E. Godavari Engg. Ltd.) on the objections received and a report was submitted to the Project Director and Special Collector (L.A.), O.R.R., Hyderabad, along with D.D. proposals. The objections/request of the petitioners for deletion of their lands from acquisition/dropping of land acquisition proceedings/change of alignment had not been considered by the P.D. & Special collector, L.A. 18. It is further averred that as per the Act, objections to the acquisition notifications need to be submitted within 30 days from the date of publications of 4 (1) notification. But, the petitioners did not file any objections within the time specified under the statute. However, action was taken on their objections and their claim on ownership was verified as per the records and also on ground and the claims of the petitioners were found to be not genuine. The Draft Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette ORR.No.27 on 18.4.2006 and in two daily newspapers i.e., The Hindu, dated 26.4.2006, Vaartha dated 26.4.2006 and it was also published in the locality on 27.5.2006. 19. It is also averred that the land in survey Nos.121 and 172 had been notified in the name of Nimmagadda Subramanyam, Balakrishna Kalappa Karande (Godavari Engineering) Aluri Tripuramba, Maladi Sudamati respectively. A general notice as required under Section 9 (1) and 10 of the Act also was got published at the prominent places of the locality on 01.6.2006 inviting the land owners and interested persons to file their claims showing their interest and title over the lands under acquisition. No one had filed objections with regard to ownership on the lands of Sy.Nos.121 and 172. In response to this notice also Award enquiry was conducted on 19.6.2006 at Gram Panchayat’s office, Muttangi and on 13.11.2006 at the office of the Special Deputy Collector, Unit-VI, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. One Balakrishna Kalappa Karande Managing Dirctor, GE attended Award enquiry and submitted copies of ownership documents i.e., Xerox copies of sale deeds Nos.1757/79, dated 14.12.1979, 1570/98, 1306/78, dated 01.8.1978, copy of E.C, copies of Pahanis, copy of letter from ICICI Bank with regard to creation of mortgage, copy of mutation proceedings of M.R.O, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District and copy of certificate of change of name issued by the Registrar of Companies, A.P. Hyderabad. 20. It is further averred that as per the copy of sale deed, an extent of Ac.5-32 guntas of land in the Sy.Nos.121 and 172 was jointly sold by Karroni Balaiah, son of late Lingaiah, Karroni Narayana, son of late Yellaiah, Karroni Laxmaiah, son of late Krishnaiah, Karroni Shankaraiah, son of late Papaiah, Karroni Yellaiah, son of late Krishnaiah, Karroni Erramma, wife of late Erraiah, Karroni Pentamma, wife of late Ramaiah in favour of M/s.Godavari Fabricators, rep. by its partners Nimmagadda Subramanyam, son of Chelammaya, Balakishna Kalappa karande, son of Kalappa Karande, Alluru Tripuramba, wife of A.V. Appa Rao, Malladi Sudha Mani, wife of Satyanarayana Reddy. As per enjoyment survey report submitted by the survey staff of ORR, the G.E. Godavari Engg. Ltd., is in possession of the lands in the Sy.Nos.121 and 172. For the first time objection petitions were filed by G. Veeraiah, K. Mallesh, K. Mallamma, K. Durgaiah, K. Pentaiah, K. Bagamma and G. Vittal with regard to lands in the Sy.Nos.121 and 172 on 14.8.2007, 17.9.2007 and 18.6.2007 respectively. One Jalli Siddaiah, advocate on behalf of G. Veeraiah and G. Vittalaiah had filed objection petition on 02.9.207 stating that they are the owners of land in an extent of Ac.0-31 guntas in Sy.No.172 and Ac.0-17 guntas in Sy.No.121 and requested to pay compensation as per the land held by them and not to pay to anybody else. In response to the petitions, notices were sent to the petitioners on 28.9.2007 and 29.9.2007 for submission of ownership documents and to attend enquiry on 04.10.2007 and 08.10.2007. But the petitioners had not attended the enquiry and not submitted the ownership documents in support of their claim. Later one K. Santhanam Ayangar, Advocate, had filed objection petition on behalf of his clients G. Vittalaiah, son of late Yellaiah, Veeraiah, son of late Laxmaiah, Bagamma, wife of late Shankaraiah, Pentamma, daughter in-law of late Veeramma, Mallesh, son of late Pochaiah, Mallamma, daughter of late Venkaiah, Durgaiah, son of late Yellaiah, K. Narayana, son of late Yellaiah, stating that his clients represented him that they are the actual pattedars of lands in Sy.Nos.172 and 121 for the extents Ac.2- 29 guntas and Ac.1-06 guntas respectively. But no documents were filed either by the advocate on behalf of their clients or the petitioners with regard to ownership. 21. It is also stated that a letter had been addressed to Jalli Siddaiah on 11.10.2007 for arranging submission of ownership documents on behalf of his clients in proof of their claims by 18.10.2007. But, no documents were received. Further, a letter had also been addressed to K. Santhanam Ayangar advocate on 27.10.2007 for arranging submission of ownership documents on behalf of his clients in proof of their claims by 05.11.2007, but no documents were submitted. On verification of documents of G.E. Godavari Engineering Ltd., it is observed that an amount of Rs.205.0 million was sanctioned to G.E. Godavari Engg. Ltd., (borrower) by ICICI Bank and a mortgage by constructive delivery of title deeds was created by G.E. Godavari Engg. Ltd., on 30.7.2007 to the ICICI Bank Ltd., Begumpet, Hyderabad, in respect of its immovable property i.e., all the pieces and parcels of land admeasuring Ac.6-27 guntas in Sy.Nos.121, 172 and 173 together with all buildings and structures and all plant and machinery attached to the earth situate in Muttangi village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. 22. It is further stated that as the ownership could not established properly by those who filed objection petitions and because of production of documents substantiating the claims of ownership by G.E. Godavari Engineering Ltd., the Award was passed on 24.11.2007 in favour of G.E. Godavari Engineering Ltd., represented by Balakrishna Karande, Chairman and Managing Director based on the available revenue records and documents received. However, since a mortgage deed was created in respect of the lands to be acquired in the Sy.Nos.121, 172 and 173 in favour of ICICI Bank, it was ordered to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.12,74,405/- to be paid to the Awardee in the bank of ICICI in the account of G.E. Godavari Engg. Ltd., and the said amount shall be paid to the Awardee after release of mortgage deeds and submission of original documents to the L.A.O. ORR, HUDA, Hyderabad. On 03.01.2008 G. Vittal one of the petitioners had submitted a representation requesting the first respondent for issuance of Award of the land in the Sy.No.172 in response to his application, a copy of the Award was issued to the petition on 04.02.2008. 23. Further it is averred in para 5 that among all the petitioners, one petition G. Vittal submitted representation for copy of Award and the others had not applied for. However, there is no objection to the first respondent to serve the copies to all. Further, it was already mentioned in the Award that the Awarded amount will be deposited in ICICI Bank after release/settlement of the loan amount and production of original documents. As the ICICI Bank is not responding to the letters written by the first respondent, it is contemplated to deposit the amount in Revenue Account. 24. It is also averred that Award was passed on 24.11.2007 and the possession of the said lands was also taken on 01.12.2007 by conducting “Panchanama”. The land was also handed over to M/s. Maytas Gayathri Consortium and the said company had already initiated work. Under Section 12 of the Act once an Award was passed, it is final and conclusive as between the Collector and the persons interested of the true area and value of the land and apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Under Section 18 of the Act, once the Award was made, it becomes final and it cannot be reopened except in manner prescribed, i.e., by way of reference under Section 18. 25. Further it is stated that under Section 11 of the Act, in case of question of title, the Land Acquisition Officer had jurisdiction to apportion the compensation among the persons interested while making an Award. Accordingly, the ownership was finalized, as no complicated questions of law and facts involved in the title. In the present case, since the petitioners had not produced any documents and the second respondent produced relevant documents, an Award had been passed in favour of second respondent. 26. Further specific stand had been taken that only those areas required for formation of Outer Ring Road were acquired and the amount relating to structures included in the Award. In any case, the petitioners not being the owners, there is no need to mention on the compensation proposed to be paid to the real owner. This is the stand taken in the counter-affidavit of the first respondent. 27. The second respondent filed counter-affidavit in detail and along with the counter-affidavit the sale deeds, the notices, the adangals, Pahanis and the letters, the certificates relating to the encumbrances and the particulars of the charges created and the other documents had been placed. Specific stand had been taken that the petitioners are not the owners and possessors of the land in question. Further it is stated that the agricultural land consisting of Ac.1-08 guntas in survey No.121 and Ac.4-24 gunas in survey No.172 of Muthangi village was purchased in the name of M/s.Godavari Fabricators from the original owners for a valuable consideration vide registered sale deed dated 01.8.1978 vide document No.1306/78 and subsequently on 14.2.1979 was transferred on M/s. Godavari Fabricators Pvt. Ltd., vide Document No.1757/79. Since 1.8.1978 the total land is in the control of the second respondent, factory was established in the year 1979 and necessary permissions from HUDA as well as Gram Panchayat Muthangi village, Medak District were also taken. 28. Further it is stated that after the factory sheds were erected, compound wall was raised around the entire extent of land purchased in survey No.121 and survey No.172 of Muthangi village and the production of manufacturing of equipments for power plants, defence, petro-chemicals and steel plants etc., had started in the year 1980-81 and around 250 people are working in the industry. 29. It is also stated that since 1978 respondent No.2 company is in possession of the land as owners and possessors and in proof of the same the registered sale deed dated 01.8.1978, transfer deed, dated 14.12.1979 along with encumbrance certificate, notice of demand under A.P. Non-agricultural Land Assignment Act, 1963, and photos filed to show the existence of the industry on the acquired land. 30. Further it is averred that the petitioners have no right, title or possession over the acquired land and after 30 years they are trying to assert rights over the land in order to harass respondent No.2 to part with money which they are not legally entitled to. 31. It is also averred that as Managing Director of respondent No.2 company this respondent even addressed letters to Chief Minister of State of A.P., Project Director, Outer Ring Road and the first respondent not to acquire the lands in survey Nos.121 and 172 of Muthangi village as it will adversely effect the industry and will be suicidal for the promoters and the people working in the industry. 32. Further specific stand had been taken that first respondent rightly rejected the representations of the petitioners, as no proper documents had been placed in proof of the title and possession of the writ petitioners. Thus, specific stand had been taken that it is not a fit case to be interfered with. 33. A reply affidavit also had been filed by the petitioners wherein again the stand taken in the original affidavit filed in support of the writ petition had been reaffirmed. No doubt, several allegations had been made as against the second respondent that with the political and official influence the second respondent encroached upon these lands by forging the registered sale deeds which they came to know only in 2005 through land acquisition notifications etc. Immediately, they lodged their protest and objections and certain examples also had been given and it is stated that these are sham documents. Several further other factual controversies in detail had been narrated in the reply affidavit in paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 as well. 34. It is suffice to state that these are factual controversies which had been narrated in detail in the reply affidavit. The relief prayed for in the writ petition had been specified above. 35. Strong reliance was placed on the decision in Mahadeo Bajirao Patil v. Sate of Maharashtra and others[1] wherein the Apex Court at paras 13 and 14 observed as hereunder: “It is not disputed that a telegram was sent to the appellant by the Special Land acquisition Officer informing the appellant that the award had been declared on August 29, 1994 and further stating that the first demand as discussed in the award was rejected. The counsel for the appellant sought to contend before us that though this telegram intimated the factum of declaration of the award necessary particulars were not disclosed therein. On the other hand, counsel for respondent no. 1 and 136 contended that the telegram clearly mentions the fact that the demand of the appellant had been rejected. The appellant sought to contend that the reference to "first demand" in the telegram is to the request of the appellant made on September 15, 1993 to change the alignment of the railway track so that the mining area of which the appellant was the lessee, was not disturbed. It was this demand that had been rejected. Such a plea does not appear to have been raised before the High Court. The appellant has not placed before us a copy of the award declared by the Special land Acquisition Officer. The representation made by him on September 15, 1993 to the Collector, Sindhudurg, of which copy had no doubt been endorsed to the Special land Acquisition Officer, did not relate to any claim of compensation payable in respect of the lands to be acquired. It was only a representation confined to the