THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.15054 of 2008 Date : 28-10-2009 Between : Radha Raman Pandey and another .. Petitioner and Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.15054 of 2008 ORDER: 1. This Court issued rule nisi on 14-7-2008 and in W.P.M.P.No.19466/2008 made the following order: “Pending further orders, there shall be interim stay of disbursement of compensation or allotment of plot in favour of the 4th respondent, if not already made”. 2. The 4th respondent had been served and the Counsel entered appearance, but no counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent. 3. The Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 in entering into compromise award with the 4th respondent and not referring the matter for payment of compensation in the form of plot to be given in lieu of the land acquired in Plot No.174 in Sy.No.202, Munthangi village, Patancheru Mandal by the respondents as notified in notification dated 21-4-2005 issued by the 2nd respondent to the competent civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter in short referred to as “Act” for the purpose of convenience) as unconstitutional and consequently to direct the respondents to refer the matter to civil Court as per Section 18 of the Act declaring that there is a genuine dispute to be decided in view of the transactions made in favour of the petitioners pertaining to Plot No.174 in Sy.No.202, Munthangi village, Patancheru Mandal and to pass such other suitable orders. 4. Several facts had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. It is stated that both the petitioners are working in Military and for several years they had lived in Hyderabad. It is further stated that M/s.G.P.R. Housing (P) Limited sent its executives to the residences and offices of the petitioners offering plots in its venture called “Green Lands” situated at Muthangi village, Pattancheru Mandal, Medak District and as the said village is in the outskirts of the city and far away from the busy atmosphere of the metro polis, both the petitioners together purchased plot No.174 admeasuring 500 sq. yards. The sale deed was also executed by M/s. G.P.R. Housing (P) Limited through its Project Manager. The said plot No.174, Green Lands is in Sy.No.202 which is spread over different sub-divisions. 5. Further it is stated that since 2005 the 1st petitioner had been in Bidar and the 2nd petitioner had been in Bangalore for the last 4 ½ years and they come to Hyderabad now and then to visit old friends and on duty. When the petitioners came to visit their old colleagues at Hyderabad in April 2008 and when they went near their plot, the petitioners came to know that the plots were being acquired by the authorities for Outer Ring Road purposes. The petitioners made enquiries and made a representation on 13-5-2008 to the 3rd respondent seeking compensation. The petitioners also gave representations on 18-5-2008 and 20-5-2008 and after looking at the proceedings dated 17-5-2008 issued by the 3rd respondent, the petitioners were shocked and made enquiries. 6. It is also further stated that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 21-4-2005 and the said notification contained the name of the vendor of the petitioners M/s. G.P.R. Housing (P) Limited, the original pattedar, in Column No.4. Both the petitioners were not in Hyderabad by the time of the notification. The 2nd respondent issued proceedings on 18-1-2007 declaring the compensation package and by virtue of the same the petitioners would be entitled for a plot spreading over 150 sq. yards. The 3rd respondent claims that the final award had been passed as per the Lok Adalat held on 30-7-2007 and the 3rd respondent has no further role to play. 7. It is also further stated that after the petitioners received the proceedings dated 17-5-2008, they immediately made a representation dated 30-6-2008 to the 2nd respondent who is the competent authority under Section 18 of the Act to refer the matter to the Civil Court. In the meanwhile the authorities are going ahead in allotting the alternate land in favour of the 4th respondent under the guise of implementing the award. 8. It is also further stated that after the award was passed, if there is no dispute regarding the quantum of compensation, the persons to whom the compensation is payable, the matter may be referred to the Civil Court. However, there is a controversy regarding the persons to whom the compensation is payable. After great difficulty, the petitioners could obtain the sale deed executed by the same Raghavendra Rao in favour of the 4th respondent. It shows that the same Plot No.174 with the same boundaries was sold to the 4th respondent by the G.P.R. Housing on 1-11-2003. Under the guise of the said second sale deed, the 4th respondent made a claim and got the award passed in her favour. The sale deed in her favour is illegal and cannot be acted upon by the officers for payment of the compensation. It is stated that the petitioners are the real owners and they are entitled to get the compensation. All these issues have to be decided by the competent court and reference has to be made by the Collector. The 1st petitioner took steps to prosecute the 4th respondent and the complaint had been lodged on 20-5-2008. The inaction on the representation of the petitioners by the respondents in this regard in spite of repeated representations is nothing but violation of Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India. The respondents ought to have inquired about the ownership from the Sub-Registrar’s office and should have issued notices to the petitioners. The compromise in Lok Adalat is sham and ought not to have been entered into by the respondents. It is further stated that in the light of the facts and circumstances, it would be just and proper to refer the matter to the competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. 9. Counter affidavit had been filed by the 3rd respondent and in reply to para-3 it is stated that the allegation of the petitioners that the respondents are not referring the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication for getting the benefit of compensation is not correct. A consent award under Section 11(2) of the Act was already passed in favour of the 4th respondent with regard to Plot No.174 of an extent of 500 sq. yards in Sy.No.202 of GPR Layout, Muttangi village before receipt of the claim from the petitioners. The said award was passed by the District Legal Services Authority/Lok Adalat at Sangareddy, Medak District vide P.L.C.No.232/07, dated 30-7-2007 and provisional allotment of the plot was also made before the Lok Adalat for 150 sq. yards in lieu of the plot lost for an extent of 333 sq. yards. Since the petitioners had not approached the 3rd respondent and the 4th respondent approached and submitted the required documents, the award was passed. After passing of the consent award before the Lok Adalat, further action cannot be taken by the Land Acquisition Officer/Special Deputy Collector and the 3rd respondent became functus officio in the matter. 10. Further in reply to paras 4, 5 and 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that for acquisition of lands for formation of Outer Ring Road at Muttangi village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District, the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act ORR No.108 in Form 2-A was issued on 21-4-2005 and the same was published in the news papers on 26-4-2005 and in the localty on 2-5- 2005. Further, another Gazette notification ORR No.27 in Form 5-A under Section 6 of the Act was also issued on 18-4-2006 and published in the news papers on 26-4-2006 and in the locality on 27-5- 2006. It is also further stated that interested persons are supposed to file their objections within 30 days from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act but in the instant case, the petitioners had failed to file their objections within the time specified under the statute. It is further stated that the award enquiry was conducted on 19-6-2006 at Gram Panchayat’s office, Muttangi but the petitioners had not attended the award enquiry and no documents were received by the 3rd respondent from the petitioners. For the first time, the 4th respondent had represented to the 3rd respondent on 18- 3-2006 that she is the owner of the land for an area of 500 sq. yards in plot No.174 in Sy.No.202 by enclosing the required documents and requested the 3rd respondent to pay the compensation. The 3rd respondent had also given consent for compensation package on 17- 2-2007. After examining and verifying the documents produced by the 4th respondent, award proposals were submitted to the Special Collector and after receipt of the Collector’s proceedings, the award was passed before the Lok Adalat. 11. It is further stated that the petitioners never approached the 3rd respondent at any time before passing of the award in Lok Adalat. The petitioners met the 3rd respondent and submitted their first representation on 13-5-2008 and the second representation on 13-5- 2008. After receipt of the said representations, the 3rd respondent had verified the records and found that double registrations were done in the case. However, a letter was given to the petitioners in response to their representations stating that already award was passed in the case and the 3rd respondent cannot take any action. As already the consent award was passed the 3rd respondent could not take action referring the matter to Civil Court for adjudication of title as requested by the petitioners. However, it is stated that, if the Court directs the matter will be referred to the Civil Court. 12. It is also further stated in reply to para-7 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that under Section 18 of the Act, any person interested who had not accepted the award may, by return application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred to the Collector for determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of compensation, the persons to whom it is payable or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. But every such application shall be made within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under Section 12(2) of the Act or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire. The allegation of the petitioners that the authorities are going ahead in allotting the alternate land in favour of the 4th respondent is incorrect and baseless. In fact, as stated supra, already provisional allotment of the plot was made in favour of the 4th respondent and no further action had been taken till now. In the circumstances the dismissal of the Writ Petition had been prayed for as the same is devoid of any merit. 13. There appears to be some controversy relating to the sale deeds pertaining to the property in question in favour of the petitioners and also the 4th respondent as well. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to the other merits and demerits. It is needless to say that these aspects may have to be gone into by the competent Civil Court. 14. Hence, in the light of the facts and circumstances and in the light of the stand taken in counter affidavit, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to refer the dispute in question to a competent Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act so as to enable the contesting parties to have their dispute settled before the competent Civil Court in accordance with the Act. Till the dispute is decided by a competent Civil Court, no further disbursement of the amount or allotment of plot to be made. 15. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice P.S. Narayana Date : 28-10-2009 AM