IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S. Nos.867, 868, 1705 & 1706 of 1993 A.S. No.867 of 1993 Between: Rahmat Hussain ..... APPELLANT AND The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, S.S.P. Alampur Mahaboobnagar District and 20 others .....RESPONDENTS A.S. No.868 of 1993 Between: Rahmat Hussain ..... APPELLANT AND The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, S.S.P. Alampur Mahaboobnagar District and 21 others .....RESPONDENTS A.S. No.1705 of 1993 Between: Syed Ghouse (died) and 9 others ..... APPELLANTS AND The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, S.S.P. Alampur Mahaboobnagar District and 7 others .....RESPONDENTS A.S. No.1706 of 1993 Between: Syed Ghouse(died) and 6 others ..... APPELLANTS AND The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, S.S.P. Alampur Mahaboobnagar District and 4 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI A.S. Nos.867, 868, 1705 & 1706 of 1993 COMMON JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) All these four appeals arise out of common order and award dated 15.02.1993 in O.P.Nos.2001/1984 and 2002/1984 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gadwal. Both the said OPs were referred by the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector, SSP, Alampur under Sec.30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act with regard to apportionment of the awarded amount among the claimants. An amount of Rs.24,156-21 ps was awarded under Award No.28/79 dated 17.03.1979 in respect of acquired land of an extent of Ac.5.03 gts in Sy.No.479/2 and Ac.5.08 gts in Sy.No.480/2, and an amount of Rs.71,601-30 ps was awarded under Award No.1/82 dated 06.02.1982 in respect of the acquired land in Sy.Nos.479/1 and 480/1 both admeasuring Ac.17.21 gts. The said lands were situated in the limits of Alampur village and they were acquired for submergence under Srisailam Hydro-Electric Project. 2. The references were made on the ground that the said lands were classified as Inam dry as per the Sethwar. The Reference Court by order dated 15.02.1993 disposed of O.P.Nos.2001/1984 and 2002/1984 holding that Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6 and 8 in O.P.2001/1984 are having equal rights over the compensation amount deposited in O.P.2001/1984, and Respondents Nos.1, 3 to 6 in O.P.2002/1984 are only entitled to receive compensation amount awarded in O.P.2002/1984 with equal shares. The Reference Court also held that the said respondents in both OPs are also entitled for interest proportionately if the amounts are deposited in the bank. Aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent in O.P.No.2001/1984 and 2nd respondent in O.P.No.2002/1984, namely Rahmat Hussain filed A.S.Nos.867/1993 and 868/1993, the legal representative of Respondents Nos.3 and 6 in O.P.2001/1984 filed A.S.No.1705/1993 and legal representatives of Respondents Nos.4 & 6 and Respondents Nos.5 & 7 in O.P.No.2002/1984 filed A.S.No.1706/1993. 3. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed before the Reference Court in O.P.No.2001/1984 wherein common evidence was let in. 4. The reason for referring the matter under Sec.30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act is that the lands are classified as Inam dry as per Sethwar, but as per the pahanies, the name of one Sri Jainulabuddin, 1st respondent in the O.Ps. was recorded as the Inamdar. It is the case of the 1st respondent-Jainulabuddin before the Land Acquisition Officer that he was the owner of the said land. But according to the 2nd respondent, namely Afzal Hussain, he purchased the said land, therefore, he is entitled to receive the compensation. The 3rd respondent-Syed Ghouse also claimed the said property stating that the lands in Sy.No.479 and 480 are Inam lands and his father Syed Ali was the pattadar, and he has also produced a copy of Muntakab stating that the said lands did not belong to the 1st respondent-Jainulabuddin. The 4th respondent-Rahmat Hussain also claimed that he was in actual possession and cultivation of the said land as a purchaser from the 1st respondent-Jainulabuddin and his claim for grant of permanent occupancy rights certificate is pending. The 3rd respondent-Syed Ghouse also filed an objection, and therefore, the award amount of Rs.24,156-21 ps covered by Award No.28/79 dated 17.03.1979 in respect of Ac.10.11 gts covered by Sy.Nos.479/2 and 480/2 was ordered to be deposited in the Civil Court for adjudication of the claim under Sec.30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Similarly, the award amount of Rs.71,601-30 ps covered by Award No.1/1982 dated 06.02.1982 in respect of Ac.17.21 gts in Sy.No.479/1 admeasuring Ac.9.00 and Sy.No.480/1 admeasuring Ac.8.21 gts was ordered to be deposited in the Civil Court for adjudication of the claim under Sec.30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. Apart from the claims of Respondents Nos.1 to 7, the Wakf Board also claimed the said property stating that it is the Mash Mashrutul Khidmat Inam land (conditional service Inam land). It is stated that the above land has been acquired by the Government and the said land being Mashrutul Khidmat Inam land it is the wakf property and the ownership vests with the A.P.Wakf Board. Respondents Nos.1 to 7 and 9 are only rendering services, as such they are not entitled for any compensation amount deposited in the court. Their claim of ownership is without any basis and they are not entitled for compensation. 6. In support of the claim of the 1st respondent-Syed Jainullabuddin, he himself was examined as RW 2. He stated that the lands in Sy.No.479 and 480 total admeasuring more than Ac.27.00 was acquired for submergence under Srisailam Hydro-Electric Project and they are his ancestral lands. It is stated that according to Exs.B17, 18 and 19 certified copies of pahanies for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70, Ex.B13 certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.11/1971 dated 12.03.1975 on the file of the District Munisif, Alampur, Ex.B14 certified copy of judgment in A.S.No.23/1978 dated 03.08.1979 on the file of the District Court, Mahaboobnagar and Ex.A16 khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 he is only entitled for compensation but not other respondents. He was cross examined on behalf Respondents Nos.3 to 6. He admitted that he got the said land in succession from his father. He has not filed any document to show that his grandfather or the father were Inamdars for the said acquired lands. It is stated that there were orders for mutation of the said land in his name. It is stated that no Munthakab was granted in his name. He denied the suggestion that Respondents Nos.3 to 6 are real Inamdars and they are only entitled for compensation. 7. In the cross-examination made by the 8th respondent-Wakf Board he denied the suggestion that the said lands are the service Inam lands and therefore, he could not get any succession certificate. 8. In the cross-examination made by the 2nd respondent namely Afzal Hussain, he admitted that the said land was given on lease in favour of the 2nd respondent for a period of three years, but he disputed about the claim made by the 2nd respondent that he purchased the said land. It is stated that he has not received any rent from the 2nd respondent from 1964 onwards. The 2nd respondent was in possession of the said land by obtaining injunction orders from the District Court, Alampur vide Ex.B13. He denied the suggestion that even prior to obtaining the injunction order, the 2nd respondent was in continuous possession of the said land. 9. The 4th respondent-Rahmant Hussain was examined as RW 1. He stated that he was in possession of the said land from 1959 to 1964 and purchased the said land from the 1st respondent-Jainulabuddin in 1964, but no written document was taken. After coming into force of A.P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, he applied for issuance of the occupancy rights certificate and Ex.B1 Occupancy Right Certificate was granted in his favour under Ex.B2 order. As per Ex.B2 order, Ex.B1 Occupancy Right Certificate was granted fixing the amount of Rs.6,000/- to be payable in 10 equal instalments and the instalments were paid under Exs.B3 and B4. He has filed Exs.B5 to B8 certified copies of pahanies for the years 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1980-81. He has also filed Ex.B9 ryotwari passbook and true copy of ROR and two land revenue receipts under Exs.B10 to B12 and therefore, it is stated that he was the owner of the said property and other respondents have no right or possession in respect of the said acquired land. 10. In the cross examination made by the 1st respondent- Jainullabuddin, RW 1 stated that he filed suit in O.S.11/1971 on the file of the District Munsif, Alampur against the 1st respondent. No doubt the said suit was dismissed, against which the appeal filed under Ex.B14 was also dismissed. During pendency of the second appeal, he applied for grant of Occupancy Rights Certificate and as Occupancy Rights Certificate was granted he withdrew the second appeal. He denied the suggestion that he has obtained Ex.B9 passbook in collusion with Patwari. 11. In the cross examination made on behalf of Respondents Nos.3 to 6, RW 1 stated that he did not know in whose name the land was recorded prior to 1959 and he did not enquire as to how 1st respondent became the Inamdar of the said acquired land. He did not know whether late Syed Ibadulla @ Babu Miya was the Inamdar of the said acquired land. He also did not know whether Inam in succession was granted in the name of his elder son Syed Ali. He did not know whether the said land belongs to Respondents Nos.3 to 6. He denied the suggestion that he has created false proceedings under Exs.B1 and B2 in collusion with one late Chandrasekhar Reddy to devoid the rights of Respondents Nos.3 to 6. 12. In the cross examination made on behalf of Respondent No.8- A.P.Wakf Board, RW 1 denied the suggestion that the said acquired lands were service Inam lands attached to installation “Alams” i.e. “Peerlu”. He stated that the succession of inam was granted in the name of 1st respondent, but he did not file any proceedings in respect of the same. He denied the suggestion that he created the said documents to grab the land and compensation amount with the help of his elder brother who worked in Tahsildar office at Alampur. It is stated that 1st respondent preferred appeal against the grant of patta certificate in respect of the said land and the same is pending before the Collector’s office. It is stated that under Ex.B2 order the Inam Tribunal granted Ex.B1 certificate only on 30.03.1982 whereas the lands were acquired in 1979 and 1982. 13. The 5th respondent-Syed Babu @ Bade Miya @ Syed Bahadur Miya was examined as RW 3. He stated that the acquired lands are the Khairathi Inam lands and the said Khairathi Inam lands were originally in the name of late Badur Miya @ Ibadullah. After his death his sons succeeded the said Inam. The Munthakhab was granted under Ex.B29. After the death of Syed Ali in 1962, succession regarding the land in dispute was granted in favour of his son 3rd respondent-Syed Ghouse. In view of the said dispute, an enquiry was conducted and Ex.B30 succession certificate was granted in the name of the 3rd respondent- Syed Ghouse and Respondents Nos.4 to 6 are included as Shikmidars. The Munthakab was granted in the name of the 3rd respondent as Inamdar and Respondents Nos.4 to 6 as Shikmidars. Ex.B31 is the Sethwari for the year 1334 fasli in the name of the 3rd respondent and Exs.B32, B33 are the Faisal Patti for the year 1955-56. Ex.B34 is the Pahani Patrika and Exs.B35 to B37 are three Inam Patrikas for the years 1952, 1365 fasli and 1359 fasli. Ex.B38 is the Khasra Pahani for the year 1954-55 which says that the father of the 3rd respondent, by name Syed Ali was mentioned as Inamdar. Therefore, it is the case of Respondents Nos.3, 5, 6 and 7 that they are only entitled for compensation but not any other respondents. 14. RW 4 was examined on behalf of Respondent No.8 who stated that the said lands are service Inam lands and they are under the control of the Wakf Board and the Wakf Board alone is entitled to receive compensation. 15. The Reference Court having formulated the point that which of the parties are entitled to receive the compensation amount and to what extent, did not decide the entitlement of the respective parties. But having discussed the evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents and without recording any finding, held that as per the oral and documentary evidence available on record, Respondents Nos.1, 3 to 6 and 8 in O.P.2001/1984 are entitled to equal rights over the compensation amount deposited in O.P.2001/1984 and Respondents Nos.1, 3 to 4 in O.P.2002/1984 are only entitled to receive compensation awarded in O.P.2002/1984 in equal shares. 16. Various contentions have been raised by the respective counsel. Sri M.V.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for appellants (4th respondent in OP.2001/1984) in A.S.867/1993 and A.S.868/1993 contended that the acquired land is Khairati Inam land without burden of service, and consequent upon of the abolition of the Inams the appellant-Rahmat Hussain has rightly applied for the Occupancy Rights Certificate and the Inam Tribunal and R.D.O, Gadwal under Ex.B2 order dated 30.03.1982 granted Ex.B1 Occupancy Right Certificate and therefore Rahmat Hussain who was shown as 4th respondent in O.P.2001/1984 and 2nd respondent in O.P.2002/1984 alone is entitled to receive the compensation amount. It is further stated that under Sec.3 of the Act notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any usage, settlement, contract, grant sanad order or instrument, Act regulation, rules or order having the force of law and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of a Civil or Revenue or Atiyat Court, and with effect from the date of vesting, all Inams shall be deemed to have been abolished and shall vest in the State. It is stated that Ex.B1 has become final as there is no order overriding the effect of Ex.B1 and unless regrant is made, respondents Nos.3, 5 to 7 are not entitled for compensation as per the Munthakab granted by the Atiyat Court. It is stated that Respondents Nos.3, 5 to 7 have not obtained any regrant under the Inam Abolition Act and therefore, the occupancy right certificate obtained by the 4th respondent has become final. 17. On the other hand, Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for appellants (Respondents Nos.3, 5 to 7 in O.P.2001/1984) in A.S.Nos.1705 and 1706 of 1993 submits that the 4th respondent-Rahmat Hussain having claimed that it is the Inam land, no document relating to Inam was filed. According to Wakf Board it is only a service inam as is evident from Ex.B29 proceedings of the Atiyat Court, based on which Ex.B28 Munthakab certificate was granted. However, it is not in dispute that the Reference Court has not decided the right, title and entitlement of the respective claimants to receive the compensation. In O.P.2001/1984 the Reference Court held that the A.P.Wakf Board is also entitled to equal share along with other respondents, but in respect of O.P.2002/1984 it is held that as the Wakf Board is not a party, it is not entitled to equal share along with respondents in the said O.P.. In so far as O.P.2002/1984 is concerned, though the Reference Court held that Mr.Rahmat Hussain, 4th respondent in O.P.2001/1984 was entitled to equal share, but no observation was made about his entitlement in O.P.2002/1984 though he was described as 2nd respondent in O.P.2002/1984. 18. We are of the opinion that the order of the Reference Court is vague with respect to the entitlement of the respective parties though sufficient oral and documentary evidence is available on record. The contention of the respective parties is that the acquired land is service inam. If that be so the service Inamdars are not entitled to compensation except the interest accrued thereon as the land vests in the Wakf Board. The Reference Court has also not considered the issue as to whether the acquired land is service Inam land, and if it is service inam land, what will be the fate of Ex.B28 and B29 the grant of service rights to the original service Inamdars. We are of the opinion that without considering the aforesaid issues and without deciding the controversy involved in the references made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the Reference Court simply disposed of the said O.Ps by common order, as stated supra. 19. In view of the above, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order under appeals and remit back the matter to the Reference Court to consider the oral and documentary evidence already available on record afresh and decide the rights and entitlement of the respective parties to receive the compensation amount. Accordingly, all these appeals are allowed. The Reference Court is directed to dispose of the OPs afresh, as above, without being influenced by any observations made in this order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J ___________________ NOUSHAD ALI,J Dated: 19.07.2010 Dsr