IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO. 1259 OF 1998 Between: Shounak and others ..... Appellants AND The Land Acquisition Officer & Revenue Divisional Officer, Narayanpet, Mahaboobnagar District and others .....Respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V. Ramana) The order dated 7.4.1998 passed in O.P. No. 51 of 1989 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, answering the reference under Sec. 30 of the Land Acquisition Act in favour of the contesting respondents which was referred by the first respondent herein, is assailed by the respondents 1 to 4 in the said O.P. Pursuant to the requisition from the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, the first respondent herein had acquired an extent of Ac.5.13 guntas in Sy. No.270/1 & 2 situated at Palla Buzurg, Narayanpet taluk, Mahaboobnagar District for construction of bus stand and bus depot at Narayanpet and passed an award dated 22.9.1986 determining the compensation amount at Rs.8,000/- per acre totaling to a sum of Rs.1,15,222.60 Ps. but in view of the dispute in title amongst the persons interested, referred the matter under Sec.30 of the land Acquisition Act for adjudication. Before the first respondent, the claim of the appellants herein was that an extent of Ac.4.00 in the above Sy. Nos. belong to them, whereas the respondents 6 and 7, whose legal representatives are brought on record as Respondents 8 to 14, claimed the same. The factual matrix in a narrow compass is that the father of appellants 2 to 4 and grandfather of first appellant Mr. A.V. Narayan Rao, purchased Ac.4.00 of land in Sy. No. 270 from one Mohd. Sab Tajuddin on 14.9.1956 by way of an unregistered sale deed and entered into possession of the said land and was paying land revenue to the Government and enjoying the property continuously in joint possession with one Md. Sab Tajuddin, who was the earlier pattedar and his name was also recorded as joint owner along with Md. Sab Tajuddin. After the death of Mr. Narayan Rao, the patta was mutated in the name of his wife Smt. Manik Bai in 1969 Jamabandi, which was rectified on the representation of the contesting respondents herein, who are the legal representatives of Md. Sab Tajuddin to an extent of Ac. 4.00 in the name of Manik Bai in Sy. No. 270/1 and the rest is shown as Sy.No.270/2 to an extent of Ac.8.14 guntas in the name of the respondents in 1975-76 Jamabandi. Smt. Manik Bai died during the course of award enquiry, bequeathing the land in Sy. No.270/1 in favour of the appellants herein by a Will dated 5.4.1985 and as such they are entitled to the compensation from the first respondent in respect of Ac.4.00 in Sy.No. 270/1, inasmuch as their father purchased the land by way of unregistered sale deed dated 4.9.1956 and subsequently entered in the revenue records also, which amply proves that they are the owners of the said property. On the other hand, it is the case of the contesting respondents that neither Narayan Rao nor his wife Manik Bai was ever in possession of the land in question. It is their case that without there being any order from the revenue authorities, the mutation of patta in respect of Ac.4.00 of land from out of Sy.No.270 in the name of Manik Bai w/o Narayan Rao is illegal, more particularly in view of their plea that the said unregistered sale deed dated 4.9.1956 was lost in the episode of their house- collapse in the year 1965 due to heavy rains. It is stated that the entries in the revenue records were made hand- in-glove with one Bheemsen Rao and his family members, who were patwaries from 1965 to 1983 and who admittedly had good relations with Narayan Rao until his death, being Brahmins, without there being any sale by the contesting respondents. The Reference Court, by the order impugned, on appreciation of the oral evidence of RWs. 1 and 2 and Exs. B-1 to B-32 on behalf of the appellants herein and the oral evidence of RW-3 and Exs. B-33 to B-49 on behalf of the contesting respondents, has answered the reference holding that the contesting respondents are entitled to receive the compensation payable in respect of the entire land acquired to the extent of Ac.5.13 guntas in Sy. No. 270/1 and 2, Palla Buzurg, Narayanpet, amounting to Rs.1,15,222.60 with the interest accrued thereon. Hence, this appeal. The prime contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is that in view of the material more particularly Ex.B-20, ryotwari passbook and the land revenue receipts Exs. B-21 to B-32, which stood in the name of the appellants’ mother upto 1984, it is established that the appellants are in possession of Ac.4.00. He further contended the father of the appellants purchased Ac.4.00 in Sy. No.270/1 from the father of the contesting respondents viz., Mohd. Sab Tajuddin on 4.9.1956 and thus he became the absolute owner of the property and his name was rightly shown in the pahanies from 1958 to 1967 as pattedar and after the death of their father, the name of their mother is mutated in the revenue records as per Exs. B-11 to B-19 and, therefore, the court below erred in rejecting the claim of the appellants. Per contra, it is the case of the contesting respondents herein that the sale deed, dated 4.9.1956 under which the father of the appellants is alleged to have purchased Ac.4.00 is a set up document which is neither filed nor marked and, as such, the evidentiary value of the said document can hardly be emphasized. Insofar as the entries in the revenue records is concerned, they contended that it is the handiwork of one Bheemsen Rao and his family members, who were the Patwaries from 1965 to 1983 and who were admittedly close to the family of the father of the appellants and, therefore, the court below has rightly disbelieved the case of the appellants and rejected their claim. It is the claim of the appellants that their father purchased an extent of Ac.4.00 under unregistered sale deed dated 4.9.1956 and his name was mutated in the revenue records, whereas it is the case of the contesting respondents herein that the entries in the pahanies are farce without there being any order from the revenue authorities. The evidence of RW-2, a retired Deputy Tahsildar, examined on behalf of the appellants, shows that he is not aware whether the father of the appellants was the owner of the land in question but he is able to say that he is the owner thereof by seeing his cultivation. He further deposed that unless there is any succession, any testamentary disposition, alienation or sale, ownership cannot be transferred and any transfer made otherwise, would be illegal. The revenue entries under Exs. B-1 to B- 19 do not refer to their authenticity and the manner of succession. That apart, it is not the case of the appellants that their father or mother have filed any application for mutation of land in their land. Therefore, the automatic mutation of their names in the revenue records speaks volumes and the contention of the contesting respondents that the family of the patwaries has favoured the appellants cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, the plea of alleged purchase of the land under unregistered sale deed also cannot be believed, inasmuch the same would have been reflected in the revenue records. In the absence of production of the alleged unregistered sale deed and in the absence of its reference in the revenue records for the purpose of mutation, reliance placed by the appellants on Exs. B-1 to B-32 hardly lends support. The evidence of RW-3 examined on behalf of the contesting respondents, traces the title of the property to a registered sale deed under Ex. B-34 dated 24th Thirth, 1354 Fasli, corresponding to 1945 AD, which is not rebutted in any manner by the appellants. He further deposed that no part of the land was sold in favour of the father of the appellants. Thus except claiming the title under the unregistered sale deed, which was not produced or marked, and the entries made in the revenue records and that too without there being any order for mutation, there is no acceptable material to substantiate the claim of the appellants that they are owners of the property in question. Whereas, there is sufficient material to trace the title to the father of the contesting respondents under registered documents under Exs.B-34, 36, 38 and the permission to purchase the property under Ex.B-40, to which they have succeeded. This piece of evidence, both oral and documentary, is not controverted by the appellants and there is nothing which shadows their title over the property. Having considered the evidence, both oral and documentary, we have no hesitation in holding that the trial court has rightly answered the reference holding that the contesting respondents are entitled to receive the compensation amount for the entire acquired land. We do not find any ground warranting interference in the judgment impugned. Consequently, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice N.V. Ramana __________________ Justice K.S. Appa Rao April 18, 2011 MAS.