IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18 of 2008 Between: 1 Sagi Ramachandra Raju S/o Narasimha Raju R/o Gopulanka, H/o Injaram Village, Tallarevu mandal, East Godavari District. 2 Sagi PAdmanabha Raju S/o narasiha Raju R/o Gopulanka, H/o Injaram Village, Tallarevu mandal, East Godavari District. 3 Sagi Ramabhadra Raju S/o narasimha Raju R/o Gopulanka, H/o Injaram Village, Tallarevu mandal, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of A.P., rep by its Secretary, Social Welfare Department Secretariat, Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, East Godavari District kakinada. 3 The Revenue Divisional officer, cum Land Acquisition Officer, Kakinada East Godavari District. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kajuluru Mandal, Kajuluru, East Godavari District. 5 Manyam Kanakaiah S/o kanaiaiah Sadanam Street, Rajahmundry, East Godavari district. .....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 issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action for the 3rd respondent in passing the Award No.23 of 2007 dated 27-11-2007 without issuing any notice to the petitioners U/s 9 of the Land Acquisition Act and without there being any application made by the petitioners U/s 11 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act as illegal, high handed, erroneous and violative of principles of natural justice and without following due procedure of law under the land Acquisition Act and Consequently set a side the Award dated 27-11-2007 vide Award No. 23 of 2007 passed by the 3rd respondent herein and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.K.KISHORE REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside Award No.23/2007, dated 27.11.2007, passed by respondent No.3, without issuing notice to the petitioners under Sec.9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) and without any application filed by the petitioners to pass an award under Sec.11(2) of the Act. Extents of Ac.3.50 cents comprised in Sy.No.394/1P and Ac.0.10 cents comprised in Sy.No.394/2P were acquired by the respondents under notification dated 24.01.2007 issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act. After publication of the said notification as envisaged in Sec.4(1) of the Act, enquiry under Sec.5-A was conducted on 05.03.2007. Declaration dated 12.03.2007 was made under Sec.6 of the Act. Notices under Sec.9(1) and 10 and Sec.9(3) and (10) were issued to the registered owner of the land who is admittedly respondent No.5. Award enquiry was made on 02.04.2007. Petitioner No.1 made his representation on 17.04.2007 to respondent No.3 for payment of compensation in respect of one acre of land comprised in Sy.No.394/1P on the ground that he holds an agreement of sale. Award was passed on 27.11.2007 under Sec.11(2) of the Act and notice of award dated 27.11.2007 was issued to respondent No.5 in respect of Ac.3.50 cents and the petitioner in respect of one acre comprised in Sy.No.394/1P. The petitioners filed this writ petition questioning the said award and notice issued in Form-9 wherein it is intimated that the award amount for one acre is ordered to be deposited in Civil Court under Sec.31(2) of the Act and the petitioners are informed that they can file their claim as per the orders of this Court in W.P.No.7940 of 2007. At the hearing Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned award is liable to be set aside on two grounds, namely, that respondent No.3 has not issued notices to the petitioners under Sec.9(3) of the Act and that respondent No.3 committed a patent illegality in passing a consent award under Sec.11(2) of the Act, though no such consent was given by the petitioners. With regard to the first contention, except pleading that the petitioners are the tenants in respect of the entire land and holders of agreement in respect of one acre, they have not filed any documentary evidence to show that in the revenue records, they are recognized either as statutory tenants or their names are mutated as owners of the land in question. The receipts evidencing payment of tax cannot be treated as part of revenue record, recognizing the possession or title of the petitioners over the disputed land. Evidently, the respondents have gone by the record or rights, which undoubtedly contains the name of either petitioner No.1 or his predecessors in title. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the award is vitiated on account of non-service of notice on the petitioners under Sec.9(3) cannot be accepted. With respect to the second contention, respondent No.3, in his counter affidavit, mentioned as under: “Award enquiry was posted by the 3rd respondent (Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada) to 17.04.2007 after publication of Draft Notification under Section 4(1) and Draft Declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act as cited in paras supra. Fair counter in W.P.No.7940/2007 was already submitted to the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad by the 3rd Respondent on 13.07.2007 and obtained the opinion of the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition on 07.09.2007 and passed Award under Section 11 (2) of Land Acquisition Act vide Award No.23/SWLA/2007 dt.27.11.2007 and issued Notice under Section 12 (2) of Land Acquisition Act to that effect and it was got served on all the landowners as well as tenants/writ petitioners due to the pending disposal of the W.P.No.7940/2007 on the file of Hon’ble High Court for the extent of Ac.1.00 Cts. Compensation amount of Rs.4,15,000/- is ordered to deposited to Civil Court under Section 31(2) of Land Acquisition Act. The same was informed in the Notice issued under Section 12(2) (in Form-9). Therefore, it is not correct to say that the entire extent of Ac.3.60 Cts. Covered by Sy.No.394/1 and 394/2P is in dispute before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.7944/2007.” I have also perused the record which contains the consent given by respondent No.5 and another person shown to be the owners of the land, agreeing for payment of Rs.4,15,000/- as market value per acre. Representation dated 17.04.2007 filed by petitioner No.1 is also found on record. In his representation, petitioner No.1 stated that he is cultivating an extent of Ac.3.66 cents comprised in Sy.No.394/1P and 394/2P by taking the said land on lease from respondent No.3 for the last 30 years, that he purchased one acre of land from respondent No.5, but he did not register the land in his favour, that he is not paying lease amount to respondent No.5 during the last 5 years, that the said land is under acquisition for providing house sites, that he is also entitled to compensation as a leaseholder and that at the time of payment of compensation, his claims may also be taken into consideration and his share of compensation may be paid in the presence of respondent No.5. A perusal of this representation does not show that petitioner No.1 has got any dispute whatsoever in respect of quantum of compensation payable nor he made any claim in respect there of. All that he requested in the said representation was that the respondents may consider payment of his share of compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner laid emphasis on the fact that since the petitioner holds an agreement of sale in respect of one acre of land, respondent No.3 committed illegality in passing a consent award under Sec.11(2) without his consent. Having considered this submission, I am unable to accept the same. The alleged agreement of sale does not confer any title on a person claiming through it. At best, the holder of agreement is entitled to sue the vendor for its specific performance. Therefore, I am of the considered view that respondent No.3 has not committed any jurisdictional or legal error in passing a consent award under Sec.11(2), on the consent being given by respondent No.5, who admittedly continuous to be the registered owner of the property in whom the title in law is vested at the time of passing award and also as on today. Therefore, irrespective of whether petitioner No.1 has made a claim for fixation of proper quantum of compensation or not, respondent No.3 has not committed any illegality in not obtaining the consent of the petitioners before passing a consent award under Sec.11(2) of the Act. In the notice dated 27.11.2007, respondent No.3 requested the petitioners and respondent No.5 to appear either in person or by an authorized agent to receive the amount specified on production of documentary evidence showing the title over the land, failing which, the award amount will be kept in revenue deposit in respect of one acre of the land, and he will treat that there is a dispute and direct to deposit the award amount in the competent Civil Court under Sec.13(2) of the Act. If the petitioners are able to satisfy the Civil Court that they are lawful owners of the property in respect of one acre of land, they are entitled to receive the said amount. For the above mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.19 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Dated: 26.02.2008 Dsr