IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 26930 of 1996 Between: SMT P NARSAMMA W/O LATE P NARSIMHA, R/O H.NO.12-2-754/2 REI BOWLI, NEAR MEHDIPATNAM, HYDERABAD. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 THE ADDL.SPL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, L.A. M.C.H. UNIT - II HYDERABAD. 2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR SUEVEY & LAND ECORDS, HYDERABAD, URBADN DISTRICT, HYDERABAD. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ or direction more particularly one of writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 herein to initiate proceeding for the acquisition of the land admeasuring 912 sq. yds. of s.no.82 of village baghlingampally which falls on the southern side of he bridge on hussain sagar nala to if the compensation and pay the same to the wp. Counsel for the Petitioner:MS.A.PULLA REDDY & ABHISHEK REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.26930 of 1996 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus directing respondent No.1 to initiate proceedings for acquisition of the land admeasuring 912 sq.yards of S.No.82 of village Bagh Lingampally situated on southern side of the bridge on Hussain Sagar Nala, to fix compensation and pay the same to the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, her late husband P.Narsimha was the owner, possessor and enjoyer of the land bearing S.No.82 admeasuring 0-3 guntas situated at village Bagh Lingampally, Musheerabad Revenue Mandal, Hyderabad District. The said Narasimha died on 20.4.1992 and the petitioner inherited the same. That Hussain Sagar Nala flows through the land bearing S.No.82 (hereinafter called ‘schedule land’). There was small bridge on the nala connecting bagh Lingampally road on northern side with Narayanaguda road on southern side. In the year 1983, the said bridge was widened by utilizing the schedule land on both sides to the extent of 1646 sq.yards. The extent on the northern side of the bridge was 734 sq.yards, whereas the extent on the southern side of the bridge was 912 sq.yards. compensation was paid for the northern side area of 734 sq.yards and compensation for the southern side area admeasuring 912 sq.yards was withheld alleging that the same was Government land ie., part of Town S.No.49. The husband of the petitioner after making several requests, had filed the W.P.No.6701 of 1988 for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay compensation for the said area. The said writ petition was disposed of on 28.10.1988 directing the petitioner to file a petition before the Land Acquisition Officer ie., respondent No.1 herein and directed the respondent No.1 to decide the claim of the writ petitioner therein after conducting enquiry. Accordingly, husband of the petitioner filed an application on 5.11.1988 and on 24.12.1988. In response to the same, first respondent issued a memo, dated 24.4.1989 stating that the land in question is a government land and the writ petitioner can seek legal remedy under Section 14 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 in the appropriate court. Against the said memo, husband of the petitioner had filed W.P.No.10054 of 1989 to quash the memo and direct the respondent No.1 to enquire into the claim of the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of on 10.12.1992 directing the petitioner to file a civil suit under Section 14 of the Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923. Accordingly, after the death of her husband, she filed O.S.No.1105 of 1992 against the respondents in the court of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for rectification of survey record and for issue of mandatory injunction for payment of compensation in respect of 912 sq.yards of S.No.82 of Bagh Lingampally. 3. The said suit was decreed on 25.4.1996. Despite the mandatory injunction granted by the Civil Court directing the respondents to pay the compensation for the land admeasuring 912 sq.yards in Survey No.82 on the southern side of the bridge on Hussain Sagar Nala utilized for widening of the bridge, the respondents are not taking any steps to pay the compensation. Further, there is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code, other than Order 21, Rule 32 for enforcement of decree of injunction. Under Order 21, Rule 32 CPC, the Civil Court, which passed the decree has no power to initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, in case the respondents herein, who are judgment debtors failed to pay the compensation. Hence, the writ petition. 4. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.1 denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is stated that the land in question was not notified under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition at any point of time as no requisition is received by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad acquired an area of 666.76 sq.yards for widening of the bridge in old revenue S.No.82. Compensation was paid for the entire area on which bridge has been widened. In respect of land acquired which is situated in Bagh Lingampally village, correlated to T.S.No.1 & 2 Block F Ward 186, an amount of Rs.1,49,739/- was paid to Sri P.Narsimha towards the compensation of the land under private negotiations on 28.2.1986. The said Narasimha filed an application on 29.12.1987 before the Deputy Director Survey & Land Records Hyderabad stating that he was not paid compensation for the entire land acquired. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.No.6701 of 1988 for payment of compensation for the remaining area. Actually, the land was not notified under the Land Acquisition Act as no requisition for acquisition of the land was received from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad at any point of time and the land was taken over by Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad under private negotiations. Though, the Land Acquisition Officer has no power to adjudicate the dispute, but in pursuance of the directions of the Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.6701 of 1988 and since the petitioner in that W.P had approached the Land Acquisition Officer on 17.11.1988 for deciding the claim after conducting enquiry, the then Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, conducted enquiry into the claim of the petitioner as per the direction of this Court. In the enquiry, it was found that as per the revenue records, the revenue Survey No.82 admeasuring 0.39 gts. is a patta land in favour of one Chappal Mallaiah S/o Eshwaraiah, Pasula Narsimha S/o Balaiah. It is correlated to T.S.No.1 & 2 Block-F, Ward-186 in town survey recorded in the name of P.Balaiah. This area is falling on the eastern side of the bridge and the compensation was paid for this area. With regard to the balance area in dispute claimed by the petitioner, it lies on western side forming part of boundary of the old Sy.No.82 within T.S.No.49, which is a Government Nala. Accordingly, the petitioner has been informed vide a memo No.B/42/88, dated 24.4.1989 that no compensation is payable for the Government Nala and to seek remedy under Section 14 of the Survey and Boundaries Act. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed another W.P.No.10054 of 1989 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition with an observation that the remedy of the petitioner if at all is to file a suit in a Civil Court under Section 14 of the Survey & Boundaries Act. This Court also observed that no direction can be given to the Land Acquisition Officer again to hold further enquiry and decide the matter whether the said land belongs to Government or not. In pursuance to the orders of this Court, the present petitioner appears to have filed a suit in O.S.No.1105 of 1992 before the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for rectification of survey records and payment of compensation in respect of 912 sq.yards in Survey No.82 Bagh Lingampally. The said suit is stated to have been decreed on 25.4.1996. It is specifically averred in the counter that the land acquisition officer has no power to initiate land acquisition proceedings suo motu. The remedy available to the petitioners is to approach the Collector (LR), who is the competent authority to order for rectification of TS records and thereafter requisition has to be filed by the Requisition Department viz Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer has no role to play in the matter. 5. From the above, it is to be noted that the facts are not much in dispute. The petitioner claimed that her husband, P.Narasimha is the owner, possessor and enjoyer of 912 sq.yards of land in S.No.82 and when the said land was acquired for the purpose of construction of the bridge, he was not paid any compensation in respect of some land acquired and therefore, he had filed the writ petitions as noticed above and ultimately, the present petitioner filed the suit in O.S.No.1105 of 1992 before the learned II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for rectification of survey records and payment of compensation in respect of 912 sq.yards in S,No.82, Bagh Lingampally. The said suit was decreed on 25.4.1996 and it is not in dispute that the same attained finality. Even in the counter filed by the respondent No.1, though there is a reference to the suit in O.S.No.1105 of 1992, the respondents have not denied obtaining of such decree by the petitioner herein. In the light of the above circumstances, the fact remains that the land in question was acquired for the purpose of construction of the bridge over the Nala. In this view of the matter, the respondents are directed to initiate land acquisition proceedings for the land in question for which no compensation was paid to the petitioner, as per the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1105 of 1992 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 25.4.1996 and take all further steps for payment of compensation as per law within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad shall also take appropriate steps on its part as required under law. 6. A copy of this order shall also be communicated to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU 22nd June, 2009 PNV