THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G ROHINI W.P.No. 27357 of 2007 ORDER (per Hon’ble Mrs. Justice T Meena Kumari) 01. This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to initiate appropriate civil and criminal proceedings in pursuant to the memo of the first respondent dated 17.9.2007 against the responsible persons in connection with reference made in O.P.No. 34 of 1974 and 21/1971 in the interest of justice. 02. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the petition are that notification under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act for short “Act” was issued and published for Acquisition of lands in Sy.Nos. 220, 221, 225, 226 253 and 254 (part) situated at Kapra Village, R R District in the year 1966 belonging to M Ranga Reddy, M Papi Reddy, M Venkat Reddy, M Yella Reddy and accordingly possession of the above said lands was taken over by the State on 4- 01-1967 and during the award enquiry, one M Narasimha Reddy and M Malla Reddy brothers of M yella Reddy filed a claim petition claiming the above said acquired lands for themselves along with M Yella Reddy. After enquiry, the Special Deputy Collector passed an Award under section 11 of the Act on 29-09-1969 and rejected the claim of M Narasimha Reddy and Malla Reddy. After passing the award, notice under section 12(2) of L.A.Act were issued to all the above six persons intimating them about the award. After the notice, M Ranga Reddy, M Papi Reddy, M Venkat Reddy and M Yella reddy sought reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation on 18.10.1969, but the said M Narasimha Reddy & Malla Reddy have not filed any petition seeking reference by challenging the Award dt. 29.9.1969 and as such no reference u/s. 18 of the Act was made in their names. In view of the dispute regarding the apportionment of compensation among the said 4 persons the matter was referred to Civil Court U/s. 30 of the Act and the same was numbered as OP No.21/71 and the reference U/s. 18 of the Act to the Civil Court was numbered as OP No.77 of 72. Though the names of M Narasimha Reddy and M Malla Reddy was not referred, they got impleaded as parties i.e., claimants 5 and 6, to the said Ops by filing a petition. But the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad recorded a finding that claimant Nos. 5 and 6 i.e., M Narasimha Reddy and M Malla Reddy are not entitled for enhancement of compensation as they had not filed any petition seeking reference. As against the said order, said M Narasimha Reddy and Mallareddy has not chosen to file any appeal and therefore, the award passed in the names of four persons M. Ranga Reddy, M Papi Reddy, M Venkata Reddy and M Yella Reddy had became final. It is also stated in the affidavit that the said Narasimha Reddy and Malla Reddy in collusion with the then Special Deputy Collector, again filed an application for reference and managed to get the reference to the Civil Court for apportionment of compensation under Section 30 of L.A.Act which is not permitted by law since they had already participated in award enquiry and they have not challenged the award under Section 18 of L.A.Act as such they cannot seek reference once again under Section 30 of L.A.Act, but the same was numbered as O.P.No.21 of 1971 and disposed of on 6.9.1972. It is further stated that the said two persons having failed to get any orders in O.P.No.77 of 1972, forged the signatures of the then Special Deputy Collector thereby fabricated a document as if they filed a petition seeking reference in time on 22-10-1969 under Section 18 of L.A.Act, and enclosing the said document they filed a fresh petition seeking reference on 16.01.1974 stating that their case has not been referred by the Special Deputy Collector and thereby requested to send the fresh reference. The Special Deputy Collector, without conducting any enquiry, forwarded a fresh reference on the same day under Section 18 of L.A. Act without having any jurisdiction, but the said reference was numbered as O.P.No.34 of 1974. Based on the reference the Civil Court passed a decree enhancing the compensation as prayed for, as the fact of fabricated and forged document were not brought to the notice of the Court. Due to the fraud played by the above two persons a loss in crores of rupees to the to the government exchequer. It is further stated in the affidavit that on coming to know he filed a representation on 10-8-2007 before respondent authorities bringing their notice about the said fraud and requested them to take necessary action against the persons responsible for cause loss to the exchequer in accordance with law and that on the said representation the 1st respondent issued a memo on 17-9-2007 No.B/728/1996 admitting that some fraud was played in getting the matter referred to the Civil Court and observed that civil and criminal action will be taken against them. Though the 1st respondent admitted that the reference made in O.P.No. 34 of 1974 is as a result of forged and fabricated document and informed that a civil and criminal action would be taken against the responsible persons through his memo dated 17.9.2007, no action is taken in the matter. Hence, the present writ petition. 03. The main grievance of the petitioner is that Mr M Narasimha Reddy, M Malla Reddy and M Rukma Reddy in connivance with the then Special Deputy Collector, created forged document to get the same referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act for getting compensation and they also played fraud on the Court in getting the Award from it by suppressing the real facts thereby causing loss to the government exchequer. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that based on the representation made by the petitioner to the Special Deputy Collector, the Special Deputy Collector made an enquiry and found that the above said persons in connivance with the office staff, played a fraud causing loss to the government exchequer and he also observed that civil and criminal action is being initiated against them. The learned counsel further contended that though the respondents stated that they are going to initiate action against the persons responsible connected to the above matter, yet they have not taken any action in that regard. Hence, he prays to direct the respondents to proceed with further action in pursuant to the impugned memo in accordance with law. 04. Learned Government Pleader submits that pursuant to the impugned memo, Government is initiating action against the persons responsible for the above actions. 05. Heard and perused the material available on record. 06. As seen from the material available on record it is clear that the Government acquired certain land in Sy. Nos. 220, 221, 225, 226, 253 & 254 etc., and conducted enquiry and passed an award under Section 11 of the L.A Act., in the names of M Ranga Reddy, M Papi Reddy, M Venkat Reddy, and M Yella Reddy by holding that the said 4 persons are reputed owners as per the records. Though, M. Narsimha Reddy and M Malla Reddy filed claim petitions disputing the shares of the above said 4 persons, after passing the award they did not challenge the said award. It is also clear from the record that in view of the dispute regarding the apportionment of compensation among the said 4 persons, the matter was referred to Civil Court under Section 30 of the Act and it was numbered as OP No.21/71 and in-turn on the application filed by them under Section 18 of the Act the matter was referred to Civil Court and the same was numbered as OP No.77 of 72. Though the said M Narsimha Reddy and Malla Reddy got impleaded as parties to the above O.P., the Civil Court rejected their claim through its judgment dated 24-9-1973 observing that the parties who have not asked for reference cannot benefit from the result of the reference and the said judgment became final as the same was not challenged. As such the award passed in the name of four persons by rejecting the claim of the said M.Narasimha Reddy and M.Malla Reddy had become final. To circumvent the finality of the judgment of the Civil Court the said two persons with the assistance of the then Special Deputy Collector got created a forged application as if their application seeking reference under section 18 of the Act is pending with the department and they got it referred to the Civil Court and got an Award from the Court in O.P.No. 21/71 and 34/74, because if really there is any such application pending with the department, nothing prevented these two persons to bring it to the notice of the Civil Court. So, the non-bringing of the said factum to the notice of the Civil Court while deciding the above OPs creates a strong evidence against them. It is settled law that orders obtained by playing fraud is null and void or non-existence in eye of law. Further, it has to be seen that in the impugned memo it was observed that the application dt. 22.10.1969, stated to have been filed, has not been entered in the Inward Register and Personal Register of the section and that it is also not traced in the records of the office and it appears to be fabricated and forged one and the referring office seems to have been colluded with the said petitioners, referred the matter to the Civil Court for adjudication, causing exchequer to the public funds and by holding that the authority proposed to initiate action against the responsible persons. In view of the above facts and circumstances including serious issue of fraud said to have been committed by the said persons in collusion with officers of respondent and as the learned government pleader also submits the Govt. is contemplating to take further action in pursuance of the impugned memo and since public money is involved, we feel that it is a fit case to direct the respondents to take further action in pursuance of the impugned memo in accordance with law. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________________ T MEENA KUMARI J ____________ G ROHINI J 01.02.08 THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI And THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G ROHINI Writ Petition No. 27357 of 2007 (Order of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Mrs. Justice T Meena Kumari) Dated: 01-02-2008