THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S NO.2368 OF 1999 22- 11-2010 BETWEEN; Basawaiah and another ...Appellants vs. Parvathi wife of Sanikaraiah and others ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S NO.2368 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: (Per NRLN,J) This appeal is filed by the claimants 2 and 5 in O.P.No.309 of 1990, which is a reference under Sections 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short “the Act”) before the Subordinate Judge, Sangareddy. An extent of Ac.20.07 guntas of land was acquired due to submergence of Singoor Project and an award enquiry was conducted and as there was a title dispute with regard to the property, the matter was referred to the Court. The dispute was between appellants and the claimant No.1 who was represented by claimant Nos.10 to 15 after his death and claimant No.3 who is also represented by the legal representatives 6 to 8 before the lower court. Claimant No.4 also made a claim with regard to acquired lands. The appellants herein filed a claim statement contending that the lands were wrongly notified in the name of the first claimant. The properties are subject matter of O.S.No.8 of 1991 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Sangareddy which was filed by the first claimant against the appellants herein for recovery of possession of the property. The appellants herein contended that the first claimant is not entitled to any rights. According to the claimants, late Advamma before her death executed two wills dated 24-01-1966 conveying the land in Sy.No.135 and other properties to claimant No.2 and conveying the land in Sy.No.136 in favour of claimant No.5 along with other properties and she died on 28-01-1996. Therefore, these claimants are the exclusive owners of the property and the first claimant has no right for compensation. Claimant No.4 made a claim that she is the legal heir of one Singaiah and entitled for the acquired land. The third claimant claimed that she is the daughter of original pattedar and entitled for the compensation amount. The lower court after considering the material on record rejected the claim of the appellants and ordered payment of the compensation to the legal representatives of claimant Nos.1 and 3. The claim of the claimant No.4 was also not considered. No appeal was filed by the claimant No.4. As the rights of the appellants were accepted, the present appeal was filed. During the pendency of appeal, the appellants died and as there are no legal representatives brought on record, this court by order dated 21-07-2010 appointed the Government Pleader for Appeals to represent the estate of the deceased. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Appeals on behalf of the appellants. The point for consideration is:- Whether the rejection of the claims of the appellants by the Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? POINT:- As can be seen from the order of the lower court the lands originally belong to one Burraiah, who had two sons by name Nagaiah and Sangaiah and two daughters by name Mahalingavva and Sanjeevavva respectively. Nagaiah and Sanjeevavva died issueless. Sangaiah married Advamma and later died. Mahalingavva married one Gundappa and had a son by name Siddaramaiah who is the first claimant. Mahalingavva filed a suit against Basavaiah Sangappa and Advamma claiming reversionary rights and lands of Burraiah under Ex.A-1 dated 02-08-1962. She died and her son came as a legal heir. The suit was numbered as O.S.No.4 of 1972 and it was decreed and the first claimant got delivery of properties under Ex.A-6 report. An attempt by the appellants to challenge the delivery proceedings was futile as can been seen from Ex.A-15. Therefore, the first claimant has become entitled to the rights in the property. An attempt was made by the claimant No.4 that he was adopted son of Advamma and Sangaiah and the suit O.S.No.73 of 1978 was dismissed. Another suit was filed by the legal heirs of Siddaramaiah in O.S.No.8 of 1991 for possession of the properties, which was also decreed. Claimant Nos.10 to 15 lost their possession. Therefore, the material on record conclusively proves that the rights of claimant No.1 are recognized by the courts. The appellants herein contend that they have acquired rights from Advamma under wills said to have been executed by her. The said wills were not produced before the lower court and no documents are filed to prove their entitlement. They are claiming rights from Advamma and her rights are also not established. The mere reliance on Pahanies (Exs.B-1 and B-2) is of no avail. When the dispute about the title has already been decided and when further more there is no proof of adoption as claimed by claimant No.4, the lower court has considered all the contentions in paragraph 22 of its judgment relying on the documentary evidence and also the legal issues. Evidently, the appellants herein except relying upon Exs.B-1 and B-2 could not produce any other evidence to substantiate their claim. Therefore, it has to be held that the lower court has rightly rejected the claim of the appellants and there is no reason to interfere with the order of the lower court by this Court. Accordingly the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 22nd NOVEMBER 2010. TSNR