IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO APPEAL SUIT No: 1857 of 1994 Between: Valki Thirupathaiah and others … Appellants And Bandari Yellaiah and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO APPEAL SUIT No: 1857 of 1994 ORDER: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A.GOPAL REDDY) This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) is filed against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda in O.P.No.15 of 1988, dated 30.09.1994, whereby the reference made under Section 30 of the Act in respect of Ac.1-15 guntas of land in S.No.457/3A of Ramachandrapuram village, was answered in favour of claimant No.1 for his entitlement and for receiving of the compensation awarded for acquisition of the said land. 2. Admittedly, Claimant No.1 and his brothers are owners and pattadars of land to an extent of Ac.12-08 guntas in S.No.457 and Ac.17-24 gunts in S.No.458 under Ex.A2 decree passed in O.S.No.68 of 1984, dated 30.10.1984. As per the same, the appellants, who are Claimant Nos.2 to 5, purchased an extent of Acs.4-00 of land out of Ac.12-08 guntas in S.No.457 and Ac.8-00 of land in S.No.458 from claimant No.1 and his brothers, and obtained a decree in O.S.No.1144 of 1986 on 20.08.1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Nalgonda under Exs.A1 and A3. Thereby, they are in possession of the said property and their names were recorded as Pattadars in revenue records for the said extent of S.No.457. On acquisition of the lands for the purpose of excavation of Sreesailam Left Tank Canal (S.L.T.C.), an award was passed in award No.32/1987 dated 14.10.1987, in respect of an extent of Ac.3-19 guntas of land out of Ac.4-00 purchased by claimant Nos.2 to 5 from S.No.457, which was subject matter of acquisition, and the compensation was awarded in their favour to the said extent, which is not in dispute. There is a rival claim with regard to Ac.1-15 guntas of land in S.No.457/3A and the claim petition filed by claimant No.1 has been rejected as he failed to substantiate their claim by documentary evidence. When the appellants, who are claimant Nos.2 to 5, were awarded compensation for Ac.3-19 guntas out of Ac.4-00 purchased by them, the matter was referred to civil court under Section 30 of the Act, for determining the persons who are entitled to receive the compensation of Rs.23,219.15 ps. for an extent of Ac.1-15 guntas, by depositing the suit amount to the credit of the civil court. 3. On reference being made to the civil court, all the claimants appeared and appellant No.4 examined himself as P.W.1, claimant No.1 as P.W.2 and his brother as P.W.3. Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. Ex.C1 application given by P.W.2 to the Land acquisition Officer was also marked. 4. Appellant No.4, who is examined as P.W.1, deposed in his evidence that claimant No.2 is his father; claimant Nos.3 and 5 are his brothers and claimant No.4 is also his brother. An extent of Ac.7-07 guntas out of Ac.12-00 owned and possessed by them were acquired by the Government and paid the compensation only for Ac.5-32 guntas, but they did not pay the compensation to the remaining lands i.e., Ac.1-15 guntas in S.No.457. The acquired land in S.No.457 to the extent of Ac.1-15 guntas, for which they are entitled to compensation, was not paid which is owned and possessed by them i.e., claimant Nos.2 to 5. Claimant No.1 has no right over the said land. Claimant No.1 and his brothers have suffered a decree in O.S.No.1144 of 1986, dated 20.08.1996 and they are not entitled to any compensation. In the cross- examination, he admitted that the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award in respect of Ac.3-19 guntas of land in S.No.457. The remaining extent of land in the said survey number, for which the award was passed, they are not concerned. It is also admitted that an area of Ac.0- 21 guntas of land is remaining in S.No.457. In the remaining land of Ac.0-21 guntas, no canal is passed and it was not acquired. Again the witness says that the canal is passed through that land also. The dispute in that case is about the land measuring Ac.1-15 guntas in S.No.457 for which the award was passed. He also admitted that the Government acquired Ac.3-19 guntas out of Ac.4-00 of land purchased by them in S.No.457 and the remaining Ac.0-21 guntas is in dispute. He volunteers that the dispute is with regard to Ac.1-15 guntas, but not Ac.0-21 guntas. He also admitted that their names were mutated in the revenue records against S.No.457 to the extent of Ac.4-00 of land purchased by them. The name of Bandari Venkaiah, the younger brother of claimant No.1, stands patta in respect of Ac.1-15 guntas of land in S.No.457. He does not remember what is the total extent of area of land in S.No.457. Under Ex.A7 Pahani, an extent of Ac.4-34 guntas was acquired for S.L.T.C. and they have no land in their name in S.No.457 after acquisition for S.L.T.C. He also admitted in the cross- examination that they did not mention that an area of Ac.4-34 guntas of land in S.No.457 and that an area of Acs.4-00 of land is acquired by the Government for the purpose of S.L.T.C. 5. Claimant No.1, who is examined as P.W.2, stated that the total extent of S.No.457 is Ac.12-08 guntas, out of which Government acquired Ac.1-16 guntas of land belonging to them for digging S.L.T.C. Out of the total extent of Ac.7-08 guntas of land acquired, he sold Ac.4- 00 to the claimant Nos.2 to 5 and Ac.3-00 of land to Kattan Lingaiah, Katta Ramulu and Chandraiah. He sold an area of Ac.1-00 to one Yakalapu Gangaiah. The Government has acquired Ac.3-19 guntas of land for digging S.L.T.Canal from out of Ac.4-00of land, which he sold to claimant Nos.2 to 5. The remaining area is about Ac.0-21 guntas of land still remaining in the possession of Claimant Nos.2 to 5. He has filed a suit against claimant Nos.2 to 5 and others for perpetual injunction, as they interfered with their possession. The certified copy of pahani of 1986 obtained from the Mandal Revenue Officer, shows his name as owner in S.No.457. He further stated that his other two brothers have agreed the area of Ac.2-00 of land belonging to him exclusively as it fell to his share in the partition of the joint family properties and he is entitled to receive the compensation. In the cross- examination a suggestion is made to this witness on behalf of claimant Nos.2 to 5 stating that the compensation was paid to respondent Nos.2 to 5 for the extent of land Ac.3-19 guntas in S.No.457. He further admitted that Exs.A5 and A6 does not disclose that he is the pattadar to the extent of Ac.2-00 in S.No.457 and his name is not entered as patadar in Col.No.12 in Exs.A5 and A6 for S.No.457. He also admitted that himself and his brothers are residing at Nalgonda since last 20 to 25 years. P.W.3 another brother stated that the land in S.No.457 is an ancestral property and the said land fell to the share of claimant No.1 and that he has no objection to pay the compensation to claimant No.1. 6. Sri N.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contends that claimant No.1 is not entitled to participate in the enquiry under Section 30 of the Act since the claim made by him with regard to S.No.458 has been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer and he has not made any claim with regard to Ac.1-15 guntas of land covered by S.No.457/3A. The reference is only with regard to claimant Nos.2 to 5 and others as mentioned in the award i.e., 12 persons including claimant Nos.2 to 5. Further, when the claimants categorically stated that they have obtained a decree under Exs.A1 and A3, claimant No.1 who has not established any title to the said property, is not entitled to receive the compensation. 7. We do not find any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the reason that in the award itself it is categorically stated that Bandari Yellaiah filed an objection petition on 07.10.1987 claiming his interest for compensation. But he has not filed any documentary evidence in support of his claim. Since S.No.458/3 being patta land of aforesaid four persons/appellants, they are entitled to receive the compensation for Ac.3-19 guntas. Once Bandari Yellaiah- claimant No.1 and his brothers are the owners of the land from whom the appellants purchased Ac.4-00 out of S.No.457 and Ac.8-00 in S.No.458, they still continue to be the land owners for the remaining extent subject to the sales, if any effected by them as mentioned in the award about the various other persons. 8. This Court in Govinda Venkata Reddy v. K.Krishna Rao[1] held that when the Land Acquisition Officer is of the opinion that the apportionment arising before him involves complicated questions of fact and/or law and that, it is desirable that those questions should be enquired into by a Civil Court, he can refuse to decide that question and refer the same for a decision to civil Court. In such a case, he has to act under Section 30 of the Act. It is obvious that when he refers the dispute as to apportionment to civil Court, he will also send the amount of compensation determined by him, to the civil Court. 9. Another Division Bench of this Court in Shayam Rao v. Land Acquisition Officer[2], held that the Collector could also make a reference suo motu wherever he considered that complicated questions of fact and law are involved. However, a person covered by S.18, who failed to seek a reference under S.18 within the period of limitation cannot ask the Collector to exercise his powers under Section 30 nor could he file a suit. Only those not falling under Section 18 could seek a reference under Section 30 of the Act or file a civil suit. 10. The Supreme Court in Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar[3] in para 25 while pointing out the difference of reference under Section 18 and 30 of the Act, observed that under Section 30 the only disputes which are referable are: (i) any dispute as to the apportionment of the amount of compensation or any part thereof, or (ii) a dispute as to the persons to whom the amount of compensation or any part thereof is payable. A dispute as to the measurement of the land or as to the quantum of compensation or a dispute of a nature not falling within Section 30 can neither be referred by the Collector under Section 30 of the Act nor would the civil court acquire jurisdiction to enter into and determine the same. 11. From the above, it is clear that once the appellants admitted in evidence that Ac.3-19 guntas of land out of total Ac.4-00 of land purchased by them in S.No.457 was acquired leaving balance of Ac.0-21 guntas and they were paid compensation, they cannot lay their claim to the remaining extent under the said S.No.457 as they have no right, nor it is for the civil court to go into the question that more area than shown in the notification and the award, was acquired or the total extent of Ac.4-00 was acquired which can be gone into only in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, but the civil Court cannot go into that aspect in a reference under Section 30 of the Act, as held by the Supreme Court in the above cited decision. 12. In view of the same, the claim of the claimants that they are entitled for compensation to the remaining extent of Ac.0-21 guntas, which was acquired, cannot be decided in the present O.P., which is referred under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the Collector was justified in referring the matter to the civil court under Section 30 of the Act, to know the persons who are entitled to receive the compensation in respect of Ac.1-15 guntas including the claim of claimant No.1/respondent No.1 herein. Claimant NO.1 has successfully demonstrated that he and his brothers are the owners of Ac.12-08 guntas of land in S.No.457 and Ac.17-24 guntas in S.No.458, which is also proved by Ex.A2 decree. Since the appellants are claiming their title through claimant No.1 and their brothers from whom they have purchased the above property, they cannot deny the title of claimant No.1 and his brothers to the remaining extent. Claimant No.2 to 5 are entitled to compensation only for the lands purchased by them in S.No.457, but they are not entitled to claim compensation to the remaining extent covered by the same survey number, which is admittedly in the possession of claimant No.1 and his brothers. 13. If the contention of the appellants’ counsel is considered by adding this Ac.1-15 guntas to the land of Ac.3-19, which was already acquired and for which the compensation is received, it will come to Ac.4-34 guntas, whereas the appellants have purchased only Ac.4-00 of land from claimant No.1 and his brothers. Therefore, they cannot claim any claim more than what they purchased. Further, P.W.1 also stated that Bandari Venkaiah, younger brother of claimant No.1 is pattadar of Ac.1-15 guntas in S.No.457, which is also supported by Exs.A5 and A6. P.W.3 also stated that the land fell to the share of P.W.1 in the partition of ancestral property between them. Even in spite of filing any document in support of the partition, the admission of P.W.1 that Bandari Venkaiah, younger brother of claimant No.1, is pattadar of Ac.1-15 guntas, is sufficient to hold that he is entitled to receive the remaining compensation for the said lands, which were acquired. In view of the same, we do not see any merit in the appeal. 14. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 22.09.2011 lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO APPEAL SUIT No: 1857 of 1994 22.09.2011 lmv [1] 1981(2) APLJ 396 [2] AIR 1991 AP 219 [3] (2003)3 SCC 128